The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Arrr

They say there was no intent of violence, and may even have some 'cover letter' but I dont know that and the crew of the ship certainly didnt know it.
All they know is 2 dudes invaded their ship. I'd treat em as pirates too. Lock em in the brig and when the ship returns to port, try em and hope they hang from the yardarm... That'll learn em.

Bloody hippies

Me$$iah wrote:Arrr

They say there was no intent of violence, and may even have some 'cover letter' but I dont know that and the crew of the ship certainly didnt know it.

Why does it matter that you or the crew of the ship didn't know it? Are you and the crew of the ship responsible for the judicial assessment of breaches of UNCLOS?

What is relevant is that the crew of the good ship Steve Irwin (that name cracks me up every time) were aware that the Japanese ship was committing offenses against international law and Australian law. They would have therefore been negligent if they took no action in their power to try to prevent that offense from being committed. The crew of that ship attempted to advise the crew of the whaling ship that they were committing offenses. In return they were unlawfully detained.

What is even more important is that after considerable writings on this matter now - I still haven't resorted to childish puns connecting the generic term for large cetaceans with the name of Messiah's country of domicile. I think that deserves a round of applause.

HeuristicsInc wrote: Rude. Very rude.

One article I read seemed to indicate that the Pope who said that was concerned that people would leave the Church if they were not allowed to eat capybara... well, ok. Popes are human. They have fears like everybody else. Doesn't mean the whole Church is wrong or something like you suggest.

Also, every church has traditions that they follow that don't necessarily come from their respective holy books. Doesn't mean they're wrong.

The whole idea about not eating meat was designed as an external sign of the fact that you were supposed to be giving things up for Lent in preparation for commemorating the death and resurrection of Jesus, sort of a time of fasting and self-denial. The "no meat" thing is an easily-legislated way to tell people to do this. "Fish" as "not meat" is a funny historical thing also. "Capybara" as "fish" is new to me and that's pretty funny.
-bill

I didn't mean to be rude or offensive. Some of the church's beliefs are just laughable, and you acknowledge that with your own laughter. I disagree with a lot of their beliefs. I didn't mean come off sounding like I meant that the church was wrong on everything, since a lot of things are obviously a matter of opinion.

I don't think the pope is infallible, and I don't think he can talk to God any better than the rest of us. But that's not something that can be proven either way. So on that account, I only think that the church is wrong.

On the matter of the capybara, as historically unscientific and consequently fluid a science as taxonomy is, it is most definitely, beyond doubt, not a fish. This is an area where I know that the church is wrong. It basically proves my point that the pope is confirmed to not be infallible if he's calling rodents fish, but I won't press that issue.

Their wrongness on any level wouldn't upset me so much if they would admit to it once in a while. Any institution that says, "It's right because we did it," isn't really one I'm going to be too fond of. As with other entities that have been discussed, the sheer arrogance really bothers me.

In any case, I don't mean disrespect to the members of any organization when I criticize the organization. My comments were referring to the church's leadership, and I wasn't even directly addressing the church in its current state. As a member of a political party, I don't get upset when someone criticizes its leader. I even partake in it, myself. As a member of a religion, one need not be upset at criticisms of its leader, and should contribute to them when necessary. At least that's how I see it.

I hope for a bit of further specific discussion on the topic, but I'd like to make sure it's understood that I'm not coming from a position of disrespect and intolerance of other people's beliefs.

Caravan Ray wrote: What is relevant is that the crew Steve Irwin were aware that the Japanese ship was committing offenses against international law and Australian law.

Steve Irwn... that is funny, that....
But from what I understand, the whaling the japs are doing is quite legal.
They are collecting whales for 'scientific' purpoises* and that is seemingly legal. As for Aussie Law well that doesnt really matter if the ship is in international waters. Even if Aus claims the sea there as theirs that dont make it so, there has to be international recognition of this fact. And there isnt so its international waters and domestic law means nothing.

Caravan Ray wrote: They would have been negligent if they took no action to prevent that offense from being committed. ... attempted to advise the crew of the whaling ship that they were committing offenses.

Again I see no offence

Caravan Ray wrote: In return they were unlawfully detained.

You board my ship withouth an invite** You bet your klownhole your gonna be detained

Caravan Ray wrote:What is even more important is that after considerable writings on this matter now - I still haven't resorted to childish puns connecting the generic term for large cetaceans with the name of Messiah's country of domicile. I think that deserves a round of applause.

Its great tho, when making a good argument pays off despite having the gaul to use puns***


* I can never resit a pun, me
** obviously I have no ship, especially not a large whaling one.... but if I did Dangnamit
*** See I cant resit getting some kinda pun in somewhere, tho you have no idea how long it took me to formulate that sentance

Lord of Oats wrote:I hope for a bit of further specific discussion on the topic, but I'd like to make sure it's understood that I'm not coming from a position of disrespect and intolerance of other people's beliefs.

Bullshit. When you said the quote below, you were disrespecting someone else's beliefs.

Lord of Oats wrote:And he knows that fish is still flippin' meat, anyway! And where's the documentation where we quoted Jesus as saying, "Don't eat meat within 40 days before the day on which you commemorate the day on which I will rise from the dead after I am crucified, or I won't love you anymore," anyway?

Lord of Oats wrote:Their wrongness on any level wouldn't upset me so much if they would admit to it once in a while..

Strange, that's exactly what I think about you.

Lord of Oats wrote: I don't think the pope is infallible

I totally agree on that one. You couched your argument in attacky language, though.
-bill

I apologize for that. My initial response was written too quickly and upon closer scrutiny, it may have indeed been quite harsh and reactionary. But see, I'm totally fallible.

I heard on NPR today, just as a brief part of a story about this canceled speech at Rome University, that the current pope had written a letter in which he called Galileo's trial something like "reasonable." You have to admit this is not the most progressive organization, having nominated this guy to be its leader. So obviously I am going to clash with it on some issues, but I'll try to approach it more sensitively. But it's good to hear we're in agreement on at least one fundamental issue.

Lord of Oats wrote: If so, just tell your government that you need simply drop a couple of large nuclear weapons on their major cities and it will shut them up for fifty years or so. The other option is a ground invasion, but that's an untested strategy.

Since everybody else is reacting to your stick poking...I'm just going to nit pick one thing myself:

The ground invasion is in fact a TESTED strategy sir.

Results: A very costly strategy.

Notes: This strategy is still celebrated today in modern video games such as sequel releases to the popular Medal of Honor series.

Me$$iah wrote: .
But from what I understand, the whaling the japs are doing is quite legal.
They are collecting whales for 'scientific' purpoises* and that is seemingly legal. As for Aussie Law well that doesnt really matter if the ship is in international waters. Even if Aus claims the sea there as theirs that dont make it so, there has to be international recognition of this fact. And there isnt so its international waters and domestic law means nothing.

You understand incorrectly - it isn't quite legal.

Firstly - as mentioned, the Australian Federal Court has ruled it illegal because it is being carried out in the Australian Whale Sanctuary. One of the gentlemen who was tied to the mast after trying to do his civic duty by trying to advise the Japanese skipper that he was acting illegally was Australian. Whaling in a declared sanctuary is an illegal activity. If the Japanese Government doesn't want to recognise Australia's claim to an EEZ around it Antarctic Territory, as it has a right to do under UNCLOS - then it up to the Japanese Government to challenge that claim in an international court. Until it does that - Japanese whalers killing whales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary are breaking Australian Law

Secondly - the whaling fleet set out this year to carry out "lethal research" on up to 50 humpback whales and 50 fin whales. Both of these species are listed as 'endangered' under the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). Hunting them is illegal under international conservation law and under the terms of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) (under which Japan carries out it "research" program").

Thirdly - it can be argued that there is sufficient reason to believe that the Japanese "cetacean research" program is inconsistent with the provisions of the IWC, since the whale cull is clearly of a commercial nature - and commercial whaling is illegal. The tests which indicate that the cull is of a commercial nature and not of a scientific nature are the lack of any significant published findings emerging from this research and the fact that there exist ample "non-lethal" methods of gathering the same data that is claimed to be being collected.

So no, you understand wrong. It isn't entirely illegal.

(BTW - When I lived in Kiribati - I went to several feasts where dolphin was served. mmmm...very tasty! The pig of the sea.)

1. Austrailian Law again..... and again, this is international waters. There has to be international recognition of Aussi ownership, to the best of my understanding, this is international waters.... Australian courts deeming it as a possesion doenst make it so. The National Court of Llewitha has deemed the area round my house as a sovreign nation, the rest of the world, however, fails to recognise this.

2. Hunting them is indeed illegal. The japs are carrying out research, deliscious research, but none the less, research.

3. It can be argued as such, and I wont disagree. But they are acting with the OK from the UN so I guess noone did argue this way. So as it stands, it seems reasonably legal from here


mmmmm dolphin.... Id like to try that, tho does it taste really fishy?
I dont really like fish, but I can imagine dolphin or whale tastes meatier, does it?


BTW and totally OT
What is the animal on the back of I think its a 5c coin??
No not the queen.... the other side, looks like a porcupine, or in Wales a hedgehog (pigs of the roadside!!)
I ask cos I seen one last night (coin not animal). And just wondered what it was. I figured it must be a marsupial of some kind, being antipodean.

Me$$iah wrote:1. Austrailian Law again..... and again, this is international waters. There has to be international recognition of Aussi ownership, to the best of my understanding, this is international waters.... Australian courts deeming it as a possesion doenst make it so.

No, you are wrong - it is Australian waters, because Australia is claiming a 200 mile EEZ around the Australian Antarctic Territory as it is entitled to do under UNCLOS. It is not that Japan does not recognise the waters as Australian as such - Japan does not recognise the Australian Antarctic Territory. But this is irrelevant. It is illegal under Australian law to take whales in the Sanctuary. If the Japanese Government wishes to challenge that under international law they can. They haven't. It is illegal under Australian law.

Me$$iah wrote: 2. Hunting them is indeed illegal. The japs are carrying out research, deliscious research, but none the less, research.

No - it it not legal.

Here is the argument as outlined by Sea Shepherd:
It is Japan that is violating international conservation law. The following list summarizes their violations:
The Japanese are whaling in violation of the International Whaling Commission's global moratorium on commercial whaling. The IWC scientific committee does not recognize this bogus research that the Japanese are using as an excuse.
The Japanese are killing whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary for whales.
The Japanese are killing whales unlawfully in the Australian Antarctic Territory
The Japanese are targeting fin whales this year and humpback whales next year. These are endangered species and thus this is a violation of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
The Japanese are in violation of IWC regulation 19. (a) The IWC regulations in the Schedule to the Convention forbid the use of factory ships to process any protected stock: 19. (a) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a land station for the purpose of treating any whales which are classified as Protection Stocks in paragraph 10. Paragraph 10(c) provides a definition of Protection Stocks and states that Protection Stocks are listed in the Tables of the Schedule. Table 1 lists all the baleen whales, including minke, fin and humpback whales and states that all of them are Protection Stocks.
In addition the IWC regulations specifically ban the use of factory ships to process any whales except minke whales: Paragraph 10(d) provides: (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10 there shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships. This moratorium applies to sperm whales, killer whales and baleen whales, except minke whales.
It is not illegal to interfere on the high seas against their illegal whaling activities. In fact, we are legally authorized to do so in accordance with the U.N. World Charter for Nature.

The United Nations World Charter for Nature states in Section 21:

States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall…:
(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature, and the protection of the environment;
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdiction , or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
(e) safeguard and conserver nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
And finally, Section 24 states:
Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present charter are met.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/133704.php

Me$$iah wrote: 3. It can be argued as such, and I wont disagree. But they are acting with the OK from the UN so I guess noone did argue this way. So as it stands, it seems reasonably legal from here

No - you are wrong again. They are not "acting with the OK from the UN". They are acting with OK from the International Whaling Commission. The IWC is not the UN. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is the administering body of CITES - and as stated earlier - by targeting species listed as endangered they are acting in contravention of CITES.

Me$$iah wrote: BTW and totally OT
What is the animal on the back of I think its a 5c coin??
No not the queen.... the other side, looks like a porcupine, or in Wales a hedgehog (pigs of the roadside!!)
I ask cos I seen one last night (coin not animal). And just wondered what it was. I figured it must be a marsupial of some kind, being antipodean.

Echidna.
Not a marsupial - a monotreme (egg-laying mammal - the platypus and echidna are the only 2 monotremes still in existence)

Ooh, here's one from today's headlines at cnn.com:

Parents: Spears' life at risk after discharge


Who proofreads this stuff? [cynical]or is it calaculated?[/cynical]

jimtyrrell wrote:Parents: Spears' life at risk after discharge


Who proofreads this stuff? [cynical]or is it calaculated?[/cynical]

Yeah, that must have been pretty toxic!

jimtyrrell wrote:Parents: Spears' life at risk after discharge

Simply removing "at risk" would make it equally factual.

Here's a good one from today's cnn.com sidebar:

"Airport Stops Man With Grenades"

...yeah, that'd probably do it.

jimtyrrell wrote:Here's a good one from today's cnn.com sidebar:

"Airport Stops Man With Grenades"

...yeah, that'd probably do it.

YUP, thats what their designed to do. But I think that they should have tried standing in front of him first or something.