The Song Fight Bulletin Board

1-ton Rodent Remains Discovered

I managed to read this two different ways before clicking the link, and they were both wrong.

First I was like 'of course it remains discovered. What are they gonna do, undiscover it?'

Then I was like 'that's ridiculous. They must be talking about a huge pile of rat shit.'

Heh, yeah, the first way you read it was the first way I read it.

I got a chuckle out of yesterday's "Pregnant Marine Slaying Press Conference."

Albatross wrote:Heh, yeah, the first way you read it was the first way I read it.

I got a chuckle out of yesterday's "Pregnant Marine Slaying Press Conference."

This one goes THREE ways as well.

1. The way it was intended, a press conference in which a Pregnant Marine murder case is discussed

2. The press conference was held so that they could slay a Pregnant Marine

3. A Pregnant Marine hacks and kills a press conference.

4.? A press of the Pregnant Marine Slaying kind, conferences... of course I think it would need a comma to make it official.

Nah, the fourth misinterpretation works without a comma. How awkward.

jimtyrrell wrote:1-ton Rodent Remains Discovered

That story is less interesting than the fact that the largest existing rodent (the capybara which is about 50kg) is considered by Catholics to be not a rodent at all, but a fish.

During the Christian celebration of Lent, capybara meat is especially popular as the Catholic church, in a special dispensation, classified the animal as a fish in the 16th century

I was very excited when I heard a report about this on Morning Edition.

I then became furious with the aboriginal Americans for hunting to extinction this and other huge mammal species.

Lord of Oats wrote: I then became furious with the aboriginal Americans for hunting to extinction this and other huge mammal species.

Don't just pick on aboriginal Americans! There was mega-fauna wiped out all over the Earth once humans started arriving. Are you equally furious with your own (I assume) aboriginal European ancectors who gobbled up all of the mammoth or the Australians that gobbled up the diprotodons?

Mind you - I think we can thank some of them. I'm sort of glad thylacoleo became extinct. It's bad enough worrying about snakes and crocs. I really wouldn't fancy going out, always having to keep one eye open for giant, tree-climbing carnivorous kangaroos the size of lions. That would suck.

Eh, I guess so. My ancestors be damned! Somehow, big, furry elephants were never really my thing, though. Though I suppose I do need to lament the entire situation, not just the one local to this hemisphere.

Mostly, I think I'd just like to thank this story for reinvigorating my interest in extinct megafauna. The rodents seem to be at home in South America, and your continent seems to favor marsupials. It seems we had zebras, lions, as well as mammoths here. There were lions in Europe at some point, too, weren't there? Oh well. Might as well appreciate what we've still got. At least they didn't kill all the Dall Sheep:



Also, HOLY CRAP CATHOLIC CHURCH. The fact that they did crap like that means that they obviously don't talk to God, because God knows that rodents aren't fish. 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?

Do Japanese Catholics eat whale on Fridays in Lent?

Hmm, I don't know...most Japanese Christians are protestant.

Oh, that reminds me...how about those Japanese whalers whaling in your country's antarctic waters, despite them having been declared no-whaling zones? Isn't that a bit arrogant of them? If the UN were to say no whaling and they said, "Hey, fuck off, these are our own waters!" then I could at least follow the logic a little bit. But as I understand, they're hunting whales in your slice of the antarctic pie, you said, "No whaling here; this is ours," to which they replied, "Hey, fuck off, these are your waters! Where does your jurisdiction originate?" It's not really surprising, considering a majority of people in Japan follow Shinto, which I believe teaches that the gods spent ages meticulously crafting Japan and its people, then they all took a big, communal shit in a bucket and made a servant girl spread it all around the areas surrounding Japan, and that gave birth to the rest of the world...or something like that. So I'd say this kind of behavior is to be expected. But I don't think it's to be tolerated. Do you think it will come to war? 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.

Lord of Oats wrote:Hmm, I don't know...most Japanese Christians are protestant.

Oh, that reminds me...how about those Japanese whalers whaling in your country's antarctic waters, despite them having been declared no-whaling zones? Isn't that a bit arrogant of them? If the UN were to say no whaling and they said, "Hey, fuck off, these are our own waters!" then I could at least follow the logic a little bit. But as I understand, they're hunting whales in your slice of the antarctic pie, you said, "No whaling here; this is ours," to which they replied, "Hey, fuck off, these are your waters! Where does your jurisdiction originate?" .

Hmmm...where to start... Your a little off course here. The crux of your argument I think is sound - ie Japanese whalers are a pack of pricks...but your details are a bit fuzzy.

The whalers are in international waters - this wouldn't happen in Australian waters - even the most gutless of Aust. governments couldn't allow that. BUT, Australia has claimed the waters as being part of the EEZ (exclusive economic zone) around the Aust Antarctic Territory. HOWEVER the AAT doesn't actually have an EEZ under the Antarctic Treaty which grants the territory. The Aust Federal Court has ruled that Japan is breaking Australian law by whaling in the AAT EEZ - but that ruling is not backed by any international law because the EEZ is not recognised internationally. ON THE OTHER HAND - apart from killing minke whales for "scientific research", the whalers now want to "research" humpback whales and fin whales - 2 species which are protected under the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES).
SO, Japan is acting illegally under Australian Law by whaling in that area, but that has no basis in international law, BUT Japan is acting illegaly under international law by targeting protected species. On top of that - Japanese whalers are a pack of cunts anyway by trying to pretend that killing minke whale to put into pet food is somehow "research".

Anyway - I doff my cap wholeheartedly to the 2 Sea Shepherd blokes who have boarded the whaling vessels. Well done lads - a job well done. Japan want to charge them with piracy. The legal outcome of this will be fascinating - and will really show how big the cohones of out new government actually are. Don't forget - the main player for Australia in this one will be this bloke - former Midnight Oil lead singer and new Minister for the Environment - the Right Honorable Peter Garrett MP. Hopefully he will tell the Japanese to jam their harpoons up their klownholes.

Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up. That's what I get for barely paying attention to stories on NPR, while I ought to be sleeping.

So it's not as bad as I thought. That's a bit relieving. I somehow didn't get the bit about international law not recognizing the area as belonging to your government. Still sounds to me like the Japanese are being a bunch of klownholes. I'm supporting your team.

Perhaps I shouldn't be that ashamed. Even a lot of attorneys find maritime law tremendously confusing. Maybe that'd be a fun thing to study.

Lord of Oats wrote: Also, HOLY CRAP CATHOLIC CHURCH. The fact that they did crap like that means that they obviously don't talk to God, because God knows that rodents aren't fish. 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?

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

Lord of Oats wrote:Also, HOLY CRAP CATHOLIC CHURCH. The fact that they did crap like that means that they obviously don't talk to God, because God knows that rodents aren't fish. 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?

Who's gonna say it???

Reïst wrote:

Lord of Oats wrote:Also, HOLY CRAP CATHOLIC CHURCH. The fact that they did crap like that means that they obviously don't talk to God, because God knows that rodents aren't fish. 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?

Who's gonna say it???

Lord of Oats wrote:Do you think it will come to war? 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.

What would shut you up for fifty years or so?

Unavailable for comment.

Verbal irony is an important device in satire. By endorsing the bombing of Japan, I'm actually condemning it.

While the basic point of the piece is to attack Japanese arrogance, the historical reference is meant to illustrate that American arrogance is also something to be very weary of.

Lord of Oats wrote:Verbal irony is an important device in satire. By endorsing the bombing of Japan, I'm actually condemning it.

In that case, you're a really, really good writer.

I gotta jump in and say.
On the whole I got no problem with the Japanese whaling ship. However the 2 dudes thats boarded it, should be tried for piracy, I think that is perfectly correct.

And as for the catholics not eating meat ... but fish and giant rat are ok ... well......

surely everyone can laugh at how silly that is.... and if people dont like having thier beliefs laughed at, then dont have such silly beliefs


thank you

Me$$iah wrote:I gotta jump in and say.
On the whole I got no problem with the Japanese whaling ship. However the 2 dudes thats boarded it, should be tried for piracy, I think that is perfectly correct.

Perfectly correct!?!

And what exactly is your definition of "piracy"?

Generally - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines it as:

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

The two gentlemen in question boarded a ship on the high seas with the intention of delivering a message to the ships master. (The letter they were delivering can be found here)

Basically - the message was to inform the whaling ship that it was acting illegally by acting in contravention of both CITES and the laws of Australia (the illegality with respect to the laws of Australia was confirmed by a Federal Court decision)


Do you consider this an illegal act of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends? If so - I don't think many courts would agree with you

Boarding a ship, albeit without sanction - where there is clearly no intent to cause violence, the detention of the crew or theft of the ship is not piracy.

So, no - that is not "perfectly correct".

Caravan Ray wrote:

Me$$iah wrote:I gotta jump in and say.
On the whole I got no problem with the Japanese whaling ship. However the 2 dudes thats boarded it, should be tried for piracy, I think that is perfectly correct.

Perfectly correct!?!

And what exactly is your definition of "piracy"?

No parrot. No cutlass. No peg leg. No eye patch.

Definately not a pirate.

And its good to see we have ditched the giant rodent talk for pirate talk.