Anti-whaling activists vs Japan's whalers

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I want to become a whaler just so I get the chance to shoot a Greenpeace member (or several, optimally) attempting to sink my ship. 😀

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

You walk a dangerous line. Down that line lies only darkness.

Edit: Also, I don't see the problem with killing whales. Some new research says they aren't much smarter than cows, which makes sense, since they are essentially the cows of the sea.

The main difference is the fact that cows can be breed to a sustained population level where we can feed off them without wiping them out. Whereas whaling is at a unsustainable level that will result in the extinction of certain species of whales. When those certain species of whales are depleted other species will than become targets.

It's really sad that you are still arguing in favor of this. Just remember when someone wants to kill or threaten you for doing something they find offensive, you have no moral defense.

I never declared I had moral superiority, and in that event, I doubt having a moral superiority over my enemy would do me any good. At least, if such an event were to occur, I could defend myself against an aggressor. As whales whose sole purpose of being hunted is for nothing more than luxury items do not have that option to defend themselves.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

So let me get this right: You would advocate protest groups round up drug users and kill them?

You have no moral leg to stand on here. You've buried yourself and are sounding more and more like a fascist. Just stop.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

So let me get this right: You would advocate protest groups round up drug users and kill them?

You have no moral leg to stand on here. You've buried yourself and are sounding more and more like a fascist. Just stop.

Did I say that? No, I said if it came down to it, if say in a hypothetical movie situation where we could only save a certain percentage of the population I would favor the person who could benefit society over the drug user. Perhaps you should try to read a statement instead of twisting it into what you want. For whale hunters? If they wish to pursue hunting the whales I have no sympathy if they are killed. It is a choice they make and one that will hopefully have repercussions for them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

You walk a dangerous line. Down that line lies only darkness.

Edit: Also, I don't see the problem with killing whales. Some new research says they aren't much smarter than cows, which makes sense, since they are essentially the cows of the sea.

The main difference is the fact that cows can be breed to a sustained population level where we can feed off them without wiping them out. Whereas whaling is at a unsustainable level that will result in the extinction of certain species of whales. When those certain species of whales are depleted other species will than become targets.

It's really sad that you are still arguing in favor of this. Just remember when someone wants to kill or threaten you for doing something they find offensive, you have no moral defense.

I never declared I had moral superiority, and in that event, I doubt having a moral superiority over my enemy would do me any good. At least, if such an event were to occur, I could defend myself against an aggressor. As whales whose sole purpose of being hunted is for nothing more than luxury items do not have that option to defend themselves.

You ignorantly contradict yourself in a single paragraph. If you believe your cause gives you the right to kill another human being in support of it, you claim moral superiority.

Like I said, remember this when someone wants to kill you for doing something they find offensive. You will have NO logical defense.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

Where does it say they're trying to take human life? They're trying to damage ships enough so that they will retreat. Lose the ship, lose the ability to whale, and maybe the whalers will go and find some other jobs to do. If they wanted to kill people they'd probably just bring guns and shoot the crew.

If I'm on a ship in the middle of the sea and you try to sink it, you can be DAMN sure I will feel as though my life were in danger. Especially in the North Pacific.

QFT.

But it doesn't mean you are dying, or will die for that matter. It still doesn't change the fact that they are NOT trying to take lives, but are just trying to scare the ships away. If this ship rams one of the vessels, and instead of just driving the ship away they accidentally start to sink it, and then leave the crew for dead, then yeah, that's killing. Or if they trying to ram the ship in weather that does not facilitate a safe return to port. Or if they try to ram the ship in an attempt to make it crack in half or something. But I have a feeling they'd at least take the crew aboard and back to land if the ship really got messed up.

I'm not debating the ethics of Shephard's tactics. They are wrong. They are willfully trying to damage the private property of another entity and sow fear into that entity, and that entity is probably just a fisherman doing his job. He might even be completely ignorant of the environmental ramifications of his actions. What I am debating is your belief that Shephard is purposefully trying to kill these people, your big leap from trying to scare away whaling ships to outright murder in the belief that animals are better than people 😕

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

You walk a dangerous line. Down that line lies only darkness.

Edit: Also, I don't see the problem with killing whales. Some new research says they aren't much smarter than cows, which makes sense, since they are essentially the cows of the sea.

The main difference is the fact that cows can be breed to a sustained population level where we can feed off them without wiping them out. Whereas whaling is at a unsustainable level that will result in the extinction of certain species of whales. When those certain species of whales are depleted other species will than become targets.

It's really sad that you are still arguing in favor of this. Just remember when someone wants to kill or threaten you for doing something they find offensive, you have no moral defense.

I never declared I had moral superiority, and in that event, I doubt having a moral superiority over my enemy would do me any good. At least, if such an event were to occur, I could defend myself against an aggressor. As whales whose sole purpose of being hunted is for nothing more than luxury items do not have that option to defend themselves.

You ignorantly contradict yourself in a single paragraph. If you believe your cause gives you the right to kill another human being in support of it, you claim moral superiority.

Like I said, remember this when someone wants to kill you for doing something they find offensive. You will have NO logical defense.

This is the problem. When we let a cause justify a violent act, we let all causes justify violent acts, and in this thier is danger.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

So let me get this right: You would advocate protest groups round up drug users and kill them?

You have no moral leg to stand on here. You've buried yourself and are sounding more and more like a fascist. Just stop.

Did I say that? No, I said if it came down to it, if say in a hypothetical movie situation where we could only save a certain percentage of the population I would favor the person who could benefit society over the drug user. Perhaps you should try to read a statement instead of twisting it into what you want. For whale hunters? If they wish to pursue hunting the whales I have no sympathy if they are killed. It is a choice they make and one that will hopefully have repercussions for them.

Then I feel very sad for you.

Liberalism has become fascism. How very, very sad.

And did you say that? No. But it IS the ONLY logical conclusion to your words. If a group is valued less by another group, it is OK to kill them.

You're a murderous totalitarian. The only thing you lack is the power to impliment your attrocities.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

You walk a dangerous line. Down that line lies only darkness.

Edit: Also, I don't see the problem with killing whales. Some new research says they aren't much smarter than cows, which makes sense, since they are essentially the cows of the sea.

The main difference is the fact that cows can be breed to a sustained population level where we can feed off them without wiping them out. Whereas whaling is at a unsustainable level that will result in the extinction of certain species of whales. When those certain species of whales are depleted other species will than become targets.

It's really sad that you are still arguing in favor of this. Just remember when someone wants to kill or threaten you for doing something they find offensive, you have no moral defense.

I never declared I had moral superiority, and in that event, I doubt having a moral superiority over my enemy would do me any good. At least, if such an event were to occur, I could defend myself against an aggressor. As whales whose sole purpose of being hunted is for nothing more than luxury items do not have that option to defend themselves.

You ignorantly contradict yourself in a single paragraph. If you believe your cause gives you the right to kill another human being in support of it, you claim moral superiority.

Like I said, remember this when someone wants to kill you for doing something they find offensive. You will have NO logical defense.

Moral superiority? No, defending the helpless is something you could call it.

As well, I do not expect a logical or moral defense to aid me if someone comes to kill me. I expect my ability to defend myself to aid me, something that these groups are giving to the whales.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

So let me get this right: You would advocate protest groups round up drug users and kill them?

You have no moral leg to stand on here. You've buried yourself and are sounding more and more like a fascist. Just stop.

Did I say that? No, I said if it came down to it, if say in a hypothetical movie situation where we could only save a certain percentage of the population I would favor the person who could benefit society over the drug user. Perhaps you should try to read a statement instead of twisting it into what you want. For whale hunters? If they wish to pursue hunting the whales I have no sympathy if they are killed. It is a choice they make and one that will hopefully have repercussions for them.

Then I feel very sad for you.

Liberalism has become fascism. How very, very sad.

And did you say that? No. But it IS the ONLY logical conclusion to your words. If a group is valued less by another group, it is OK to kill them.

You're a murderous totalitarian. The only thing you lack is the power to impliment your attrocities.

Would you rather your family live than a group of rapists, pedophiles and junkies? Or would you have no problem flipping a coin over it? Some people are worth more than others, thinking otherwise is naive.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

So let me get this right: You would advocate protest groups round up drug users and kill them?

You have no moral leg to stand on here. You've buried yourself and are sounding more and more like a fascist. Just stop.

Did I say that? No, I said if it came down to it, if say in a hypothetical movie situation where we could only save a certain percentage of the population I would favor the person who could benefit society over the drug user. Perhaps you should try to read a statement instead of twisting it into what you want. For whale hunters? If they wish to pursue hunting the whales I have no sympathy if they are killed. It is a choice they make and one that will hopefully have repercussions for them.

Then I feel very sad for you.

Liberalism has become fascism. How very, very sad.

And did you say that? No. But it IS the ONLY logical conclusion to your words. If a group is valued less by another group, it is OK to kill them.

You're a murderous totalitarian. The only thing you lack is the power to impliment your attrocities.

Would you rather your family live than a group of rapists, pedophiles and junkies? Or would you have no problem flipping a coin over it? Some people are worth more than others, thinking otherwise is naive.

Whale hunters do not endanger YOU, or any other innocent humans.

Again, compairing them to people who violate the civil rights of others is absurd.

You're a fanatical tyrant. Thankfully you're an impotent one.

BTW, I used to be a drug addict. So you can take that comparison and shove it straight up your pompous little ass.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

Where does it say they're trying to take human life? They're trying to damage ships enough so that they will retreat. Lose the ship, lose the ability to whale, and maybe the whalers will go and find some other jobs to do. If they wanted to kill people they'd probably just bring guns and shoot the crew.

If I'm on a ship in the middle of the sea and you try to sink it, you can be DAMN sure I will feel as though my life were in danger. Especially in the North Pacific.

QFT.

But it doesn't mean you are dying, or will die for that matter. It still doesn't change the fact that they are NOT trying to take lives, but are just trying to scare the ships away. If this ship rams one of the vessels, and instead of just driving the ship away they accidentally start to sink it, and then leave the crew for dead, then yeah, that's killing. Or if they trying to ram the ship in weather that does not facilitate a safe return to port. Or if they try to ram the ship in an attempt to make it crack in half or something. But I have a feeling they'd at least take the crew aboard and back to land if the ship really got messed up.

I'm not debating the ethics of Shephard's tactics. They are wrong. They are willfully trying to damage the private property of another entity and sow fear into that entity, and that entity is probably just a fisherman doing his job. He might even be completely ignorant of the environmental ramifications of his actions. What I am debating is your belief that Shephard is purposefully trying to kill these people, your big leap from trying to scare away whaling ships to outright murder in the belief that animals are better than people 😕

It seems to me that damaging someones ship while they are in the north Pacific is functionally trying to kill them. That's like saying that smacking someone with a baseball bat is not trying to kill them. Even if you don't intend for them to die, your are creating a situation, by willfull and deliberate act, that puts their life in danger. I, for one, believe that these people should be charged with attempted murder.

 

[BrownTown]

Greenpeace is a terrorist organization so far as i'm concerned. Well not really, but at least one radical faction of the group is, and when you fund them you are funding their terrorist expeditions along with their more benign ones. Trying to ram ships in the middle of the open ocean goes well past protesting, people get killed doing that. Same goes for those ELF people who lights SUVs on fire, and the rest of the radical enviromentalists. I think we should all be able to agree that radicals on any front (religious fundamentalists, fasists hard core communists, radical enviromentalists etc..) are ALL bad, when you resort to terrorist tactics and violence to try to get your point across you lose all moral authority in my view. Even if you have good intentions killing people to get them is almsot never the answer.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

So let me get this right: You would advocate protest groups round up drug users and kill them?

You have no moral leg to stand on here. You've buried yourself and are sounding more and more like a fascist. Just stop.

Did I say that? No, I said if it came down to it, if say in a hypothetical movie situation where we could only save a certain percentage of the population I would favor the person who could benefit society over the drug user. Perhaps you should try to read a statement instead of twisting it into what you want. For whale hunters? If they wish to pursue hunting the whales I have no sympathy if they are killed. It is a choice they make and one that will hopefully have repercussions for them.

Then I feel very sad for you.

Liberalism has become fascism. How very, very sad.

And did you say that? No. But it IS the ONLY logical conclusion to your words. If a group is valued less by another group, it is OK to kill them.

You're a murderous totalitarian. The only thing you lack is the power to impliment your attrocities.

Would you rather your family live than a group of rapists, pedophiles and junkies? Or would you have no problem flipping a coin over it? Some people are worth more than others, thinking otherwise is naive.

Whale hunters do not endanger YOU, or any other innocent humans.

Again, compairing them to people who violate the civil rights of others is absurd.

You're a fanatical tyrant. Thankfully you're an impotent one.

BTW, I used to be a drug addict. So you can take that comparison and shove it straight up your pompous little ass.

Give up, he's fallen into the animals = people logical trap.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Greenpeace is a terrorist organization so far as i'm concerned. Well not really, but at least one radical faction of the group is, and when you fund them you are funding their terrorist expeditions along with their more benign ones. Trying to ram ships in the middle of the open ocean goes well past protesting, people get killed doing that. Same goes for those ELF people who lights SUVs on fire, and the rest of the radical enviromentalists. I think we should all be able to agree that radicals on any front (religious fundamentalists, fasists hard core communists, radical enviromentalists etc..) are ALL bad, when you resort to terrorist tactics and violence to try to get your point across you lose all moral authority in my view. Even if you have good intentions killing people to get them is almsot never the answer.

Not just Greenpeace, but PETA, ALF, and Sea Shepard are all domestic terrorist organizations - and should have a couple of JDAM's put into each of their headquarters facilities.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

So let me get this right: You would advocate protest groups round up drug users and kill them?

You have no moral leg to stand on here. You've buried yourself and are sounding more and more like a fascist. Just stop.

Did I say that? No, I said if it came down to it, if say in a hypothetical movie situation where we could only save a certain percentage of the population I would favor the person who could benefit society over the drug user. Perhaps you should try to read a statement instead of twisting it into what you want. For whale hunters? If they wish to pursue hunting the whales I have no sympathy if they are killed. It is a choice they make and one that will hopefully have repercussions for them.

Then I feel very sad for you.

Liberalism has become fascism. How very, very sad.

And did you say that? No. But it IS the ONLY logical conclusion to your words. If a group is valued less by another group, it is OK to kill them.

You're a murderous totalitarian. The only thing you lack is the power to impliment your attrocities.

Would you rather your family live than a group of rapists, pedophiles and junkies? Or would you have no problem flipping a coin over it? Some people are worth more than others, thinking otherwise is naive.

Whale hunters do not endanger YOU, or any other innocent humans.

Again, compairing them to people who violate the civil rights of others is absurd.

You're a fanatical tyrant. Thankfully you're an impotent one.

Your barbaric, stuck in an age of where humans should be allowed to do what they want to the earth and never feel any repercussions. Thankfully people such as yourself are a dying breed. Whale hunters endanger civility and the ethics of modernity. To continue to allow barbaric acts from the past continue when humans have reached a point where they do not need to hunt everything that moves is pathetic. Not only that, but to allow humans to continue to purposely inflict pain on another living creature when we have the technology to avoid that is also barbaric. The human race in case you did not notice is slowly moving forward with respect to the environment and an udnerstanding that we cannot continue to keep a status quo ongoing without any repercussions. Some countries still need to learn that and realize there is a reason a good number of countries have outlawed there barbaric practices. Japan is one that needs to learn this, Canada is another with its seal hunts. As I said, thankfully your type of people, ones who have no problem abusing the earth for all it is as long as it provides them with the pleasures they want now are dying out. Society as a whole had advanced to the point where we can substitue or recreate the majority of what people want in regards to this. Having to go out and purposely kill an endangered species for a luxury item or food is uncivil and barbaric and the world is better off without the hunters who act in this.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

So let me get this right: You would advocate protest groups round up drug users and kill them?

You have no moral leg to stand on here. You've buried yourself and are sounding more and more like a fascist. Just stop.

Did I say that? No, I said if it came down to it, if say in a hypothetical movie situation where we could only save a certain percentage of the population I would favor the person who could benefit society over the drug user. Perhaps you should try to read a statement instead of twisting it into what you want. For whale hunters? If they wish to pursue hunting the whales I have no sympathy if they are killed. It is a choice they make and one that will hopefully have repercussions for them.

Then I feel very sad for you.

Liberalism has become fascism. How very, very sad.

And did you say that? No. But it IS the ONLY logical conclusion to your words. If a group is valued less by another group, it is OK to kill them.

You're a murderous totalitarian. The only thing you lack is the power to impliment your attrocities.

Would you rather your family live than a group of rapists, pedophiles and junkies? Or would you have no problem flipping a coin over it? Some people are worth more than others, thinking otherwise is naive.

Whale hunters do not endanger YOU, or any other innocent humans.

Again, compairing them to people who violate the civil rights of others is absurd.

You're a fanatical tyrant. Thankfully you're an impotent one.

Your barbaric, stuck in an age of where humans should be allowed to do what they want to the earth and never feel any repercussions. Thankfully people such as yourself are a dying breed. Whale hunters endanger civility and the ethics of modernity. To continue to allow barbaric acts from the past continue when humans have reached a point where they do not need to hunt everything that moves is pathetic. Not only that, but to allow humans to continue to purposely inflict pain on another living creature when we have the technology to avoid that is also barbaric. The human race in case you did not notice is slowly moving forward with respect to the environment and an udnerstanding that we cannot continue to keep a status quo ongoing without any repercussions. Some countries still need to learn that and realize there is a reason a good number of countries have outlawed there barbaric practices. Japan is one that needs to learn this, Canada is another with its seal hunts. As I said, thankfully your type of people, ones who have no problem abusing the earth for all it is as long as it provides them with the pleasures they want now are dying out. Society as a whole had advanced to the point where we can substitue or recreate the majority of what people want in regards to this. Having to go out and purposely kill an endangered species for a luxury item or food is uncivil and barbaric and the world is better off without the hunters who act in this.

And the final act of your idiocy is the assumtion that I agree with whaling. Please go back over my posts and point out where I said I support hunting whales? WHOOPS!

BTW, why not tell all your liberal friends and professors at school how you feel the life of a drug addict is worthless. WHOOPS!

You're a fascist wrapped up in liberal's clothes. A would be murderer who is, in reality, just an ignorant and thankfully impotant little boy.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

In some cases yes. Not all human life is equal.

Really? So our Constitution is garbage?

You do realize the danger in your words, no? If YOU feel entitled to decalre one human life worth less than another... than anyone else can do the same.

You are in good company: The KKK, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... and the list goes on.

The republicans, most Americans who say they would rather the Muslims die than there soldiers, most people who would favor having scientists and academic minds live over pedophiles and drug addicts in case such decisions ever had to be made. Yes, good company with the majority of the population who would value certain people's lives over anothers. Again though, as I said, I hope the militant group does sink many of the Japanese vessels and this barbarism is stopped.

No, Americans say they would rather extremists bent on murdering innocent civilians and soldiers die. Americans say people who infringe on the rights of others or threaten their well being should die or be locked away. There is a theme here... can you guess it?

All men are created equal. Too bad you missed that part in civics class.

At any rate, this is insane. Again, can I kill you for eating that burger? Because that is the logical conclusion to your illogic.

If the results of my eating this hamburger were resulting in the destruction of a species, yes I would support you killing me.

All men were created equal at birth yes, there actions, or there conditions of life through there life decide whether they are worth anything to society or not on a whole and therefore if they are more valuable than another person or not. Sorry, but I would rather a professor/teacher at most universities to continue living over a junkie who will spend his life looking for a fix. With that said, I would rather the whales live than the hunters who hunt them for no real purpose besides as a luxury item.

So let me get this right: You would advocate protest groups round up drug users and kill them?

You have no moral leg to stand on here. You've buried yourself and are sounding more and more like a fascist. Just stop.

Did I say that? No, I said if it came down to it, if say in a hypothetical movie situation where we could only save a certain percentage of the population I would favor the person who could benefit society over the drug user. Perhaps you should try to read a statement instead of twisting it into what you want. For whale hunters? If they wish to pursue hunting the whales I have no sympathy if they are killed. It is a choice they make and one that will hopefully have repercussions for them.

Then I feel very sad for you.

Liberalism has become fascism. How very, very sad.

And did you say that? No. But it IS the ONLY logical conclusion to your words. If a group is valued less by another group, it is OK to kill them.

You're a murderous totalitarian. The only thing you lack is the power to impliment your attrocities.

Would you rather your family live than a group of rapists, pedophiles and junkies? Or would you have no problem flipping a coin over it? Some people are worth more than others, thinking otherwise is naive.

Whale hunters do not endanger YOU, or any other innocent humans.

Again, compairing them to people who violate the civil rights of others is absurd.

You're a fanatical tyrant. Thankfully you're an impotent one.

Your barbaric, stuck in an age of where humans should be allowed to do what they want to the earth and never feel any repercussions. Thankfully people such as yourself are a dying breed. Whale hunters endanger civility and the ethics of modernity. To continue to allow barbaric acts from the past continue when humans have reached a point where they do not need to hunt everything that moves is pathetic. Not only that, but to allow humans to continue to purposely inflict pain on another living creature when we have the technology to avoid that is also barbaric. The human race in case you did not notice is slowly moving forward with respect to the environment and an udnerstanding that we cannot continue to keep a status quo ongoing without any repercussions. Some countries still need to learn that and realize there is a reason a good number of countries have outlawed there barbaric practices. Japan is one that needs to learn this, Canada is another with its seal hunts. As I said, thankfully your type of people, ones who have no problem abusing the earth for all it is as long as it provides them with the pleasures they want now are dying out. Society as a whole had advanced to the point where we can substitue or recreate the majority of what people want in regards to this. Having to go out and purposely kill an endangered species for a luxury item or food is uncivil and barbaric and the world is better off without the hunters who act in this.

And the final act of your idiocy is the assumtion that I agree with whaling. Please go back over my posts and point out where I said I support hunting whales? WHOOPS!

BTW, why not tell all your liberal friends and professors at school how you feel the life of a drug addict is worthless. WHOOPS!

You're a fascist wrapped up in liberal's clothes. A would be murderer who is, in reality, just an ignorant and thankfully impotant little boy.

:thumbsup:

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

Where does it say they're trying to take human life? They're trying to damage ships enough so that they will retreat. Lose the ship, lose the ability to whale, and maybe the whalers will go and find some other jobs to do. If they wanted to kill people they'd probably just bring guns and shoot the crew.

If I'm on a ship in the middle of the sea and you try to sink it, you can be DAMN sure I will feel as though my life were in danger. Especially in the North Pacific.

QFT.

But it doesn't mean you are dying, or will die for that matter. It still doesn't change the fact that they are NOT trying to take lives, but are just trying to scare the ships away. If this ship rams one of the vessels, and instead of just driving the ship away they accidentally start to sink it, and then leave the crew for dead, then yeah, that's killing. Or if they trying to ram the ship in weather that does not facilitate a safe return to port. Or if they try to ram the ship in an attempt to make it crack in half or something. But I have a feeling they'd at least take the crew aboard and back to land if the ship really got messed up.

I'm not debating the ethics of Shephard's tactics. They are wrong. They are willfully trying to damage the private property of another entity and sow fear into that entity, and that entity is probably just a fisherman doing his job. He might even be completely ignorant of the environmental ramifications of his actions. What I am debating is your belief that Shephard is purposefully trying to kill these people, your big leap from trying to scare away whaling ships to outright murder in the belief that animals are better than people 😕

It seems to me that damaging someones ship while they are in the north Pacific is functionally trying to kill them. That's like saying that smacking someone with a baseball bat is not trying to kill them. Even if you don't intend for them to die, your are creating a situation, by willfull and deliberate act, that puts their life in danger. I, for one, believe that these people should be charged with attempted murder.

I see your point, and now realise that it depends on the perspective of the side you're on. Shephard probably views itself as a defender of some sorts, one that uses what they think to be non-fatal methods to defend whatever. They probably view their ramming simply as a deterrent, like an eletric fence to keep your dog from running away. I'm sure you can agree that using an electric fence wouldn't be considered attempted murder of your dog or something, despite the fact that you're still inflicting injury on the dog.

On the other side, the whalers probably have a different view. You're out whaling, then suddenly a ship comes up and repeatedly tries to ram you. You will probably fear for your life. What are their motives? What are they going to do with us? How far are they willing to go? In this instance they're the dog who doesn't know about the purpose of the electric fence *OMG am I going to be electrocuted to death???*

It's not attempted murder in Shephard's view, but it probably is in the view of the whalers.

EDIT: As far as the view of the law, I think it is prudent to treat Shephard's actions severly because it can result in very very bad consequences, such as people dying. I wouldn't go so far as outright attempted murder, because they are first and foremost not trying to murder anyone, hence the inadequate use of the word "attempted," but they should be charged with something almost as grave.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RichardE
I for one hope the Greenpeace ships sink a few of the whale hunting ships.

Ah, I see, so it's OK to take human life to protect an animal?

Can I kill you for that burger you ate?

Where does it say they're trying to take human life? They're trying to damage ships enough so that they will retreat. Lose the ship, lose the ability to whale, and maybe the whalers will go and find some other jobs to do. If they wanted to kill people they'd probably just bring guns and shoot the crew.

If I'm on a ship in the middle of the sea and you try to sink it, you can be DAMN sure I will feel as though my life were in danger. Especially in the North Pacific.

QFT.

But it doesn't mean you are dying, or will die for that matter. It still doesn't change the fact that they are NOT trying to take lives, but are just trying to scare the ships away. If this ship rams one of the vessels, and instead of just driving the ship away they accidentally start to sink it, and then leave the crew for dead, then yeah, that's killing. Or if they trying to ram the ship in weather that does not facilitate a safe return to port. Or if they try to ram the ship in an attempt to make it crack in half or something. But I have a feeling they'd at least take the crew aboard and back to land if the ship really got messed up.

I'm not debating the ethics of Shephard's tactics. They are wrong. They are willfully trying to damage the private property of another entity and sow fear into that entity, and that entity is probably just a fisherman doing his job. He might even be completely ignorant of the environmental ramifications of his actions. What I am debating is your belief that Shephard is purposefully trying to kill these people, your big leap from trying to scare away whaling ships to outright murder in the belief that animals are better than people 😕

It seems to me that damaging someones ship while they are in the north Pacific is functionally trying to kill them. That's like saying that smacking someone with a baseball bat is not trying to kill them. Even if you don't intend for them to die, your are creating a situation, by willfull and deliberate act, that puts their life in danger. I, for one, believe that these people should be charged with attempted murder.

I see your point, and now realise that it depends on the perspective of the side you're on. Shephard probably views itself as a defender of some sorts, one that uses what they think to be non-fatal methods to defend whatever. They probably view their ramming simply as a deterrent, like an eletric fence to keep your dog from running away. I'm sure you can agree that using an electric fence wouldn't be considered attempted murder of your dog or something, despite the fact that you're still inflicting injury on the dog.

On the other side, the whalers probably have a different view. You're out whaling, then suddenly a ship comes up and repeatedly tries to ram you. You will probably fear for your life. What are their motives? What are they going to do with us? How far are they willing to go? In this instance they're the dog who doesn't know about the purpose of the electric fence *OMG am I going to be electrocuted to death???*

It's not attempted murder in Shephard's view, but it probably is in the view of the whalers.

The only difference is the Shepherds, in their fanaticism, are too stupid to see the danger they are putting other people in.

The law says ignorance or stupidity fueled by blind fanaticism is no excuse.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It's not attempted murder in Shephard's view, but it probably is in the view of the whalers.

Who cares about the view from the criminal's perspective? A religious fundamentalist is only upholding the name of his god when he kills people, in his mind.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Amused

The only difference is the Shepherds, in their fanaticism, are too stupid to see the danger they are putting other people in.

The law says ignorance or stupidity fueled by blind fanaticism is no excuse.

Last post was edited.

And yeah, pretty much. But maybe Shephard actually stays in port during bad weather and only goes out when seas are calmer to give the whalers a few "love taps?" Or maybe they just do a fake charge and break off at the last minute just to rattle the whalers a bit, like a bear does. I don't know the specific details, and you probably don't know either, which is why jumping to the conclusion that they are killers is premature.

BUT I have a feeling they're probably more aggressive than that. In one of the links I think it shows a wall or something of the Shephard's "kills" aka ships they've actually sunk. And yeah, that's just reckless and stupid.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It's not attempted murder in Shephard's view, but it probably is in the view of the whalers.

Who cares about the view from the criminal's perspective? A religious fundamentalist is only upholding the name of his god when he kills people, in his mind.

It matters because there are too many situations in this world to just jump to conclusions.

Take for example this:

A couple of teenagers set up plastic deer in the middle of the road as a gag. They think it'll be funny to just see people slam on the brakes, swerve a bit, and then go on their merry way. As a result they cause a huge traffic accident and some fatalities. You cannot charge these people with attempted murder because they were not attempting murder of any kind. The criminal's perspective does matter, hence the reason we have courts of law to understand the circumstances and give out appropriate punishments.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Amused

The only difference is the Shepherds, in their fanaticism, are too stupid to see the danger they are putting other people in.

The law says ignorance or stupidity fueled by blind fanaticism is no excuse.

Last post was edited.

And yeah, pretty much. But maybe Shephard actually stays in port during bad weather and only goes out when seas are calmer to give the whalers a few "love taps?" Or maybe they just do a fake charge and break off at the last minute just to rattle the whalers a bit, like a bear does. I don't know the specific details, and you probably don't know either, which is why jumping to the conclusion that they are killers is premature.

BUT I have a feeling they're probably more aggressive than that. In one of the links I think it shows a wall or something of the Shephard's "kills" aka ships they've actually sunk. And yeah, that's just reckless and stupid.

You are beginning to see the light.

They have sunk ten ships. That's hundreds of lives they have endangered.

It would be, at the very least, criminally neglegent homicide if someone dies, and intentional reckless endangerment of they do not. I personally consider it attempted murder.