Greenpeace try eating whale to stop whaling...

[MonkeyFunk]

TOKYO (AFP) - As activists clash with Japanese whalers on their Antarctic hunt, other anti-whaling campaigners are doing the once unthinkable -- getting out chopsticks and tasting whale meat.


In a bid to reach out to the Japanese public to end the slaughter, the environmental movement Greenpeace is turning its back on confrontation to show it is respectful of Japanese culture.

For Valentine's Day, Greenpeace distributed cards worldwide, including by fax to a Japanese whaling boat, reading, "I love Japan, but whaling breaks my heart."

And some supporters of the group which has battled for decades to protect the world's largest animals are doing what hardliners find abominable -- eating whale.

more at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070214/sc_afp/japanenvironmentwhalingngo_070214042655



Interesting approach. Diplomacy, understanding, compromise, sensitivity. I hope it works.

[Glorfindel]

1. Not a chance

Compromise with monsters like that is NOT possible. If our government had any guts, we'd blast the whaling fleet out of the water (after a fair warning so the crews could evacutate, of course). When the last slab of whale meat is being roasted over the remains of the last redwood tree, we'll all wonder why we didn't do more to save what we had. Always too little, always too late.

[spoony]

6. So you want to start a naval war?

Genius.

[The Stranger]

8. Non-sequiter?

Regardless, definitely not genius.

[spoony]

19. Well if our government, as this poster suggests,

decides to begin sinking foreign vessels, I'd say that's a pretty good way to begin a war. Which, of course, is just what we need now.

[shain from kane]

7. From hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee. Ye damned.

whale(killers).

[MonkeyFunk]

11. And that's the same

approach Bush takes with Iran and North Korea.

Personally, I prefer talking to killing.

[Bonobo]

16. Wow, right off. First poster =monsters. So who are "They"?

Are they negotiating with "monsters"? Then who are these monsters you identify?

Are "They" the whalers themselves? They are not not monsters and the negotiations wouldn't be with them anyway.

Are "They" the Japanese politicians? Not monsters. Like most politicians, they are interested in re-election so a ground up movement is the solution.

Are "They" the Japanese themselves?

"If our government had any guts, we'd blast the whaling fleet out of the water ".............. Honestly, that quote is embarrassing. Isn't it? Honestly...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

2. That makes as much sense as fucking for virginity.

:eyes:

[The Straight Story]

9. I have been doing that for years

I'm so virgin now I haven't even been born :)

[MonkeyFunk]

13. I don't think so

did you read the article? They're trying to build widespread political support for the anti-whaling position in Japan through dialog and understanding, rather than attacking the people of Japan.

I wish our government leaders would try the same approach when facing a nation they have issues with.

[shain from kane]

3. Speak not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me.

[flvegan]

4. I don't see where Greenpeace is eating whale.

"Supporters of the group" are probably not employees.

It's like saying Michael Moore supports Bush because he's a member of the NRA.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Dunno

I copied the headline exactly as written.

But it does state that Greenpeace has an online travelogue showing a Spaniard eating whale meat. Whether he's an employee or a supporter isn't made clear. But if they're using the video, I'm not sure his actual job-status matters much. The point is Greenpeace is endorsing a different tactic.

[flvegan]

15. So then it would appear that Greenpeace isn't eating whale.

And the headline is bullshit. Not your fault, so that's not my point. My point is that it's a bullshit headline.

Greenpeace can coddle all it wants. It missed all the headlines this year and needs to do something. It's good press for them.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. again

the article doesn't say what the relationship between the Spaniard and Greenpeace is. Maybe he IS an employee. I'm not sure it matters, though - the fact is Greenpeace is endorsing this approach. That's the point of the article.

[flvegan]

21. I looked again.

I don't see where Greenpeace "endorses" their supporters to seek out whale meat to eat.

The headline, regardless of what you spin, is bullshit.

[Bonobo]

23. Greenpeace is right. You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.

Showing respect while appealing to the heart is a much more effective strategy with the Japanese then sending ships to ram them.

Actually, it's probably more effective with anyone.

Attacking people tends to make them...defensive.

Have a nice day!

:pals:

[flvegan]

25. Greenpeace is right?

Then whaling should cease immediately.

I don't see the whaling issue as needing to attract bees. Attracting bees is akin to setting bait. To then the strategy would be to bait folks with something, rather than suggesting something genuine?

You have a nice day too.

[Bonobo]

27. I'm sorry, I honestly did not understand that. Let's go one step at a time.

Let's agree for the moment that all whaling should stop immediately, okay.

The question then becomes "how do you achieve it". Isn't that correct?

[flvegan]

29. You're skipping steps.

Okay, I'll buy in. Agreed, for the moment, all whaling should stop immediately.

The question is not about how one achieves it. The first questions are:

1. Who whales?
2. Why do they whale?
3. What are the laws regarding whaling?
4. What are the penalties for violating (3)?
5. What are the alternatives to whaling?

We can skip ahead though, if you want. Maybe "how you achieve it" addresses this. First understand, then seek to be understood.

[Bonobo]

32. Let's continue below, okay?

[MonkeyFunk]

36. It's not my "spin"

I'm pointing out that Greenpeace has put this on their OWN website!!

And whatever fuels your hostility can't be good for your health.

[flvegan]

38. Post a link to Greenpeace suggesting folks eat whale.

Do it.

No link, no dice.

I can't WAIT for this one...I have one hand behind my back, btw.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. I posted the story

using the headline that was provided.

I never said Greenpeace suggests that people eat whale. I simply posted the story and said that your calling the headline "bullshit" wasn't based on known facts.

Seriously, your aggression is out of line, and cause for concern. Why can't you ever just discuss something without being thuggish about it?

[flvegan]

44. Oh, wait...that means

"I don't have one."

Wait...here's what's funny. I can go to Fox and post a headline about us NEEDING to go to war with Iraq.

Guess that justifies it all.

[MonkeyFunk]

51. Why should I have one?

I never said there WAS one.

Stop with the goonish behavior.

[flvegan]

56. And you proved it.

Nice work.

"Goonish" aside.

mark

[MonkeyFunk]

57. Yes

I proved you're being irrational in demanding I provide something I never said I had. Mark.

[flvegan]

58. Keep thinking that.

WMDs in Iraq probably keep Bush warm at night as well.

[MonkeyFunk]

59. LOL

You're a caricature. An aggressive, goonish, thuggish caricature.

[keepCAblue]

5. The people of Japan won't eat it...

In spite of major marketing efforts by the whaling industry, the people of Japan have turned their noses up at whale, simply because it tastes so bad. So now the whalers have redirected their marketing to the pet food industry...

Imagine, slaughtering these magnificent creatures for dog food.

Obscene.

[Annces]

10. Sea Shepherd, a whaling conservation organization says Greenpeace is not walking the talk

anymore. According to them, Greenpeace collects the donations but is not out chasing the bad guys anymore.

"In a recent meeting at the National Maritime Museum in Sydney, Australia, Shayne Rattenbury of Greenpeace said that they have accomplished all that they could this year and there was no need to return to Antarctic waters at the end of the year to confront whalers. If they return to Antarctica at all, it will be for a global warming research mission.

Greenpeace is estimated to have spent over one million dollars in promotions over the recent campaign to Antarctica where Greenpeace crewmembers were filmed observing the slaughter of the whales.

Shayne Rattenbury said that Greenpeace had to re-evaluate their tactics after one of their crew was thrown into the ocean during a confrontation with a Japanese whaling ship. “If not for the fact that he was wearing a survival suit, he would have died in those frigid waters,” said Rattenbury.

Captain Paul Watson was amused at the statement. “I thought that was what a survival suit was for,” he said. “My crew all jumped into the water on New Year’s Day to swim with the penguins and they were only wearing bathing suits. Rattenbury seems to forget that risk is what this is all about. Of course it is risky. Of course it is dangerous. If it was easy then everyone would be doing it. Now it looks as if only Sea Shepherd will be taking these risks against the pirate whalers next year.”


http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060220_1.html

[Bonobo]

18. That quote of Watson's is very telling psychologically

Oh, I know I am not a psychologist and might be accused of cherry picking, but hat was one hell of a big cherry:

“My crew all jumped into the water on New Year’s Day to swim with the penguins and they were only wearing bathing suits.
Rattenbury seems to forget that risk is what this is all about. Of course it is risky. Of course it is dangerous. If it was easy then everyone would be doing it. Now it looks as if only Sea Shepherd will be taking these risks against the pirate whalers next year.”

Wow, I thought it was all about stopping whaling... :shrug:

[Annces]

20. I don't quite understand your point

"cherry picking". I mean Watson sounds like a risk-lover, but what is wrong with that. He is putting his life on the line and takes pride in that. The Japanese are illegally killing whales in the Antartic Whale Sanctuary, but no one is enforcing the law and stopping them. Greenpeace used to be out there taking risks, but I guess they are changing. If they can persuade the Japanese to stop whaling, more power to them.

[Bonobo]

35. I guess I'm suggesting he is addicted to the lifestyle and has lost sight

of the larger picture. Easy to understand. It must be really thrilling to be Superman and I mean that seriously.

His cause is noble perhaps. Painful slaughtering of animals is, well...painful. But that does not make it the best approach from a paragmatic perspective to dealing with the issue.

That is the point of the OP article. Giving out whale-shaped chocolates (I hope it was a mistake, but the actually said "chocolate-shaped whale, I think! Blech!) is more effective in "humanizing" (if you will) the whales. A necessary step.

[Bonobo]

14. Cheers! Now THAT is making a sacrifice for your cause!

It will get attention believe me.

Most Japanese under the age of 4o have never even had whale meat and almost NOBODY really WANTS to eat it.

It is an issue that is more popular with politicians than with the public because it has come to REPRESENT the extent to which the West is trying to force all of its culture onto Japan. Whales and Japan have a 10,000 year old history and so politicians use it as a political football to show their Nationalism.

Here's a link to a good article on the subject;

Resentments sustain a moribund meat trade
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20070211x4.html

If you follow the link, you will also see many related stories analyzing this issue in a very pragmatic way.

[flvegan]

22. Good one!

Could almost set my watch by you.

[Bonobo]

24. Fivegan, could we discuss the issue. I am tired of fighting with you.

I am trying to propose effective ways that would help the cause that you say you are interested in and all you can do is throw one liners at me?

What IS your objective in this?

You don't follow links that I put up that would increase understanding and you don't even respond to what I actually say.

Everything seems to be personal with you.

What IS it?

[flvegan]

26. Let's discuss.

Leave the personal attacks and strawman bullshit aside.

You go first...

[Bonobo]

28. Okay. Agreed. Now strawmen. No personal attacks.

If whaling should stop, we should discuss how to stop it. Correct?

Let's further say that while Japan is my area of expertise, animal conservation may be yours (I'm not saying it is or isn't because I honestly do not know.)

Are we still okay? Ready for the next step?

[flvegan]

30. Let's go.

This is good. Civil. I like it.

[Bonobo]

31. Okay. Here's my take.

Nobody likes to have someone else's opinions shoved in their face, right?

Take you and me as an example: It is a good analogy, I think.
Even if you take 2 people that are INCLINED to agree, if disprespect is shown, then even 2 opinions, 2 people that COULD have come together will fight with eachother with the real issues taking a back seat and being used as a pretense to continue the fight (which is really all about the disrespect in the first place)

Are we still underdstanding each other?

[flvegan]

33. I'm with you. Go on.

[Bonobo]

34. So what I have been trying to say is that respect and appeal to reason

is a better way to change opinion.

I think that the series of articles that I linked to in the Japan times (editorials really) state it better than I can.

But essentially the article linked in the OP is saying the same thing. Attack leads to defense. Simple as that. It rarely leads to mutual understanding. I think that is supported by most of history as well as common sense.

Again, the fact that you and I are now discussing this, after putting aside our mutual personal attacks and posturing, is evidence of this.

Emotions are an obstacle to thinking. And currently, the Japanese people are not so committed to the eating of whale meat that there is no room for discussion.

It souds like we are done, but actually not quite... Are we still in agreement though? BTW, can you take a few minutes to read the link I posted above or even a few of the articles in there? They are not very long.

[flvegan]

37. I largely agree with you in that

respect and reason is an excellent way to appeal to an opinion. I think we can agree that a change of opinion takes more than that. A link to Free Republic proves that. I won't provide one. It uglies DU up.

Attack may lead to defense, yes. Emotion may well be an obstacle to thinking. I'm totally with you here, and in agreement.

However, I think that there are numerous sides to change. It's not all pretty. When something is wrong, when taken up at a grassroots level, it takes many fronts to enact change. Suggesting that Sea Shepherd is what has been suggested here is one side, Greenpeace another, the IWC another, etc, etc. It's like laying out the protesting folks in DC. Direct action is just that.

However, if one stonewalls opinion, as the Japanese govt has in this case, it's not debate anymore. It's force. It's like attacking Iraq (sorry for the obvious).

Direct action is just that. It's not always pretty, and it's not always proper. It is what it is.

Good conversation, btw, Bonobo. I'm digging this.

[Bonobo]

39. Okay, but now I need to stop you for a moment for clarification.

You said:

"However, if one stonewalls opinion, as the Japanese govt has in this case, it's not debate anymore. It's force. It's like attacking Iraq (sorry for the obvious)."

Could you expand on this. I didn't get it. What is like attacking Iraq? My feeling is that the Sea Shepherd action is more like attacking Iraq. We had plenty of economic might that we could have used to alter Iraq's actions (we were a HUGE customer of theirs). SO why attack? Why not use economic incentives or public opinion? Doesn't diplomacy cease the moment an attack is made.

I believe it is the attacking mentality that has forced the positions to become entrenched and that you can't do both at the same time...

Can you and I reach a consensus on this one issue (i.e. whether diplomacy can be done hand in hand with attacking)

[flvegan]

40. Well, you've crossed the line to "want" here

The Japanese govt cares little about the opinion of the world and her people (check the US v. Iraq) in this case. Opinion was stonewalled and folks went forward with what they wanted, regardless.

Economic incentives in the case of whaling hasn't worked. Public opinion is what is being worked with now, at times.

The Japanese govt (not the people) have given the middle finger to the whole debate. They'll kill whales, and that's it. They'll bribe other nations to try to get their buy in on the IWC future. Worst of all? There's no reason. It's not for food. It's for selfishness. They want to.

See, what you and I are doing right now, is good. Let's hash it out. The what, the why, the how. Problem is, the Japanese government played "decider" in this one. They don't care. They'll kill whales. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. The fight comes to them.

The positions aren't entrenched for the reasons you state. It's apples v oranges in this regard. Japan whales for money, pride. Sea Shepherd does what they do for more altruisic reasons. Not much to gain by being given the eco-terrorist label, taking on a nation, etc.

You'll need to clarify your "diplomacy" question as I think a typo (hand in hand with attacking) seems to be there.

[Bonobo]

46. It is important to understand the WHY of the Japanese govt's defense of whaling

You are correct about most of what you said. Japanese govt. is ignoring public opinion (for the time being). I think I am right about their reasons though.

You said "The positions aren't entrenched for the reasons you state. It's apples v oranges in this regard. Japan whales for money, pride. Sea Shepherd does what they do for more altruisic reasons. Not much to gain by being given the eco-terrorist label, taking on a nation, etc."
--I think this is a bit of a red herring. Motive is important, yes, in order to figure out how to stop this. I think I am right about the govt. reasons though.

Let me paste a bit from the article I keep suggesting you read.

"Much as Japan's politicians champion logic and science in the service of their cause, however, it is clear that nationalism is one of the pillars that props up the campaign. Many of the most active prowhalers are on the right of the political spectrum, and the vast majority of the PWL has no electoral or commercial ties to whaling. In fact, only around 10 percent come from districts with a direct connection to the whaling industry.

Discussions in Japan about the loss of whaling are inevitably tinged with loss of national pride."

One thing that you have to understand about Japan is that although they tend to change slowly, when they change, they ALL change at the same time. I would describe public opinion in Japan vis a vis the whaling situation as this: First of all, they do not tend to see whales in the "humanized" fashion that we in the West do. All joking and making fun aside, you must recognize that most of these differences in perception are the result of media influence. We have all, as Westerners, been influenced by the image of the intelligent whale and dolphin. Movies (Free Willy), TV shows (Flipper), songs (Baby Beluga), and the like have given us a particular VIEW of whales that is not the same as the one widely disseminated to Japanese people (for good or bad). The best way to counter this is by "humanizing" or maybe "cutifying" the whale. That would go much further towards changing public opinion.

"You'll need to clarify your "diplomacy" question as I think a typo (hand in hand with attacking) seems to be there."

--What I meant by this is that I don't think you can both respect a person on one hand and attack them at the same time. As soon as the attack begins, the entrenchment begins. That is what I meant.

I hope we have not yet reached a standstill here.

BTW:

"At its early 1960s peak, Japan's whaling industry boasted eight big fleets yielding more than 200,000 tons of meat annually. It currently has just one fleet with one mother vessel and three catcher boats."

[flvegan]

55. Fact remains:

Whaling is an unnecessary venture. The spoils of the hunt go to waste.

National pride. That speaks quite a bit.

Selfishness, then. Call it what it is. Suffering for national pride.

That is the "why" and that seems to be the most inherently unacceptable reason.

[Bonobo]

62. Okay. agreed. Terrible reason. But not only national pride. Politics too.

But the thing you and I are discussing here is no longer the morality of whaling but the morality and effectiveness of the "force approach". I don't see any evidence that it is effective and I see a lot of commentary from people who know Japan better than you and even I, suggesting that it is not.

But do we not agree yet that this type of "Gunboat diplomacy" which hearkens back to the way Japan was forced open in 1853 (by the cannons of a whaling vessel ironically) is an ineffective way to achieve your desired goals?

At the same time, I can offer you abundant opinions of myself and others as well as anecdotes that would suggest that respect and diplomacy are a more effective way.

I think you and I, by the way, have arrived at a much more reasonable place than we started when we only heard ourselves. Don't you agree?

[Blue-Jay]

42. Good fishing, poster.

You "Ham & Egger"!

:rofl:

[Bucky]

43. If they really want to halt the whaling, they should start eating Japanese boat captains.

[Blue-Jay]

45. I've found that they're too salty.

Get it? :D

[Bonobo]

47. I get it. But what I want is that photo you have for a sig.

Is there a big version somewhere?

[Blue-Jay]

48. Sure is.

Not TOO much bigger, sadly, but here it is:

[Bonobo]

49. Thanks!

[Blue-Jay]

54. I live to serve.

:hi:

[Bucky]

50. Aw, nuts

Hmmm, guess they can get salty, too. If you salt them.

[MonkeyFunk]

52. Seamen and salt

go together.

Try eating pineapple.

[Blue-Jay]

53. I see what you did there, poster...

[LeftyMom]

60. Oh, are they still around?

:boring:

[Blue-Jay]

61. Yar.

[Bonobo]

64. Hey Blue-Jay I hate to push my luck but...

You got a wallpaper size photo of that pirate nun by any chance?

[Blue-Jay]

65. Sorry. That's my biggest pirate nun.

If it were any bigger, I'd be afraid that it would climb through my monitor and punch me in the neck.

[Bonobo]

66. "Punch me in the neck" LOL!

[MonkeyFunk]

67. ooh

Sister Lawrence Eagleburger!





BTW, ever had an eagleburger? Yummmy...

[Bonobo]

63. You're here too, mommy!

Welcome back. If you're nice you can stay!