Anti-whaling activist Paul Watson to remain detained in Greenland
thebestaquaman @ thebestaquaman @lemmy.world Posts 11Comments 602Joined 2 yr. ago
thebestaquaman @ thebestaquaman @lemmy.world
Posts
11
Comments
602
Joined
2 yr. ago
Come on... you're even linking the sources yourself at this point, just take some time to read them.
First of all, you explicitly stated "endangered", while the source you're linking says "vulnerable", which is a category specifically made for species that are threatened but not endangered.
Secondly, the source states that Japan has no reported fin whale catchings since 2019.
Finally: You can't accuse me of cherry-picking when you've stated that "Whales [in general] are endangered", and I respond with sources stating that seven of the most commonly hunted species are "least concern", when you then cherry pick an example of one species that is heavily regulated, even by the countries that permit any catch at all, and that species isn't even endangered but vulnerable. What you're doing is pretty much the definition of cherry picking: Finding a single example that almost supports the claim you're making.
You're free to argue that you don't like the idea of people eating whales. I'll leave it to you to explain why. What I won't let stand unopposed is when you're basing your argument on disinformation, and back-tracking or moving the goalposts when confronted.
Just yell "save the whales" and be done with it. And stop acting like it's based on some objective fact that doesn't apply to every other animal that's hunted for food. It's not- it's a sentimental thing, and that's completely fine, just be honest about it.
Note that I have not once in this thread defended whaling, or the hunting of endangered species. All I've done is point out that you're spreading falsehoods to make it seem like what is in essence a sentimentally based opinion has backing in facts.
What whales? No whale of any kind had anything to do with Denmark signing an extradition treaty with Japan or with Denmark arresting someone who's wanted for committing a crime, which is what the comment was about.
Did you respond to the wrong comment?
Let's take a look at what the actual facts say about the conservation status of some of most commonly hunted species that are regulated under international whaling conventions:
Go on, back-track some more, I can't wait to watch.
Or, you know, make your argument that you don't think people should eat whales without relying on either being uninformed or knowingly spreading disinformation. You don't really have an excuse here: You're very clearly just stating falsehoods as if they were fact and building your non-existent argument on that. You can do better.
If you have an extradition treaty with someone, you can typically arrest people if they've been charged for something in the country you have a deal with, even if they haven't violated your laws.
Regardless: What the person is charged with is unrelated to them being a whaling activist as far as I can tell, but to them causing harm while acting as an activist, which I suppose is also a crime in Denmark.
It does not violate international law. It's specifically regulated by an international treaty that some countries are part to. Don't go around spreading disinformation, it's a bad look.
That’s why we have the Bill of Rights: it’s meant to stop people from simply saying “the government needs this power so we’re going to give it that power.” It isn’t about creating rights, it’s about recognizing and protecting rights that have existed all along.
This is kind of a contradiction. What the bill of rights does is exactly to codify certain rights into law. There are a bunch of things considered a right today which aren't written into the bill of rights, and there are things codified in there that a lot of people don't consider to be "natural and universal human rights". Something doesn't become morally right by being written in the bill of rights, it just becomes a legal right. And of course, the US government can in some hypothetical scenario throw out the whole constitution and write a new one, making a whole new set of legal rights.
Of course, the above hypothetical changes nothing regarding what is considered morally correct, it just changes what rights are codified into law. In fact, the bill of rights is explicit in pointing out that what should be considered a right can change over time, and several of its clauses are therefore open to interpretation.
The whole "recognizing that right X exists outside the legal system" kind of falls apart when you look at the details. For example:
This is not something that was ordained from above and has always applied to every living person. It's a right the government has decided to give you. You can agree or disagree with it, but it's a right every american citizen has nevertheless. In other countries people have a right to housing, sick leave from work, or a certain number of vacation days per year. Those are rights that the american government has decided to not grant its citizens. Again, you can agree or disagree with that decision, but the fact remains that american citizens do not have those rights. Whether any of those rights in some sense "existed all along" (even though a lot of people don't have them) is a purely hypothetical question. The question with practical consequence is which rights should be codified into law.
The last sentence in every chapter of the Russian history book:
And then it got worse.
You seem to be missing a key part here: I can disagree with the government. It also appears that you are confusing the concept of rights in a legal sense, and the moral sense.
If the government can decide what rights there are, then anything they do is morally correct?
Obviously not. The decisions of the government are based on what some majority wants (in a democracy, in an authoritarian state it doesn't even need to be that). The fact that a majority of those in power decide something does not make it morally right. I don't understand how that is a difficult concept to grasp?
Until relatively recently, same-sex marriages were not allowed. Gay people did not have the right to marry who they wanted. This was decided by the government. Me recognising that as historical fact does not mean I think it was morally justified to prevent people from marrying who they wanted.
Also today, we have laws granting or restricting peoples rights that the government is free to change. I do not think that the current state of our laws is the end-all-be-all of morality, and neither does my government, which is part of the reason why laws are constantly changing.
You're making a jump here that I have a hard time believing you're making in good faith..
Saying "The government makes the laws and decides what rights people have" is just miles away from saying "the government is justified in making whatever laws it pleases."
Yes: the Nazis were in power, and took away peoples rights. Me recognising that that's how governments work does not mean I support the actions of that government or think they are morally justified in doing what they did... obviously.
That would be fine, I can live with choosing two of those for any given account.
What I hate is when the company offering the service forces its choice on me. I may be reliant on logging into some specific account without access to my phone, but then along comes company X and says "NOPE! Your account security is more important than you being able to access your own stuff. We're completely on board with locking you out of your own accounts in the name of security."
To be clear, I'm talking about personal accounts. Those on a network where I'm responsible for preventing a breach are another matter of course.
I'm surprised you're getting downvoted so heavily: Is it really that controversial of an opinion that I want to be able to make the choice between reliable accessibility, efficiency, and hardened security for my personal stuff?
Of course: On a corporate network I have a responsibility to have a very secure account so that I'm not a weak point, I'm not talking about scenarios where my account being breached exposes others that I'm responsible for.
I'm talking about my personal accounts. I may want to choose to have a password and no 2FA, for the simple reason that I may want to be able to access my account from a library computer or internet cafe without having access to any of my devices. That reliable access may be more important to me than having heavier security, and nobody has any business asking me why, because it's my data that I'm choosing how to protect. However, that's become pretty much an impossibility by now, with everyone shoving 2FA and whatnot down my throat, regardless of what I want.
If I happen to lose/break my laptop and phone simultaneously, which is not unthinkable given that I carry both on me pretty much every day, I'm pretty much locked out of everything.
Al lot of the same properties as a mine field. An unobserved mine field is quite quickly passed through. The issue primarily arises when you need to clear a mine field while under fire.
Combine them with ditches, barbed wire, possibly mines, and have forward observers directing fire on anyone trying to break through, and they're a real PITA for attacking forces.
Essentially, they give just a couple forward observers the power to hold up an attacking force for quite some time while reinforcements arrive, at which point you've lost whatever advantage of manpower or surprise you had when attacking.
While I get your point, I think it makes complete sense, and a big difference, when opinion pieces are labelled.
While I 100% agree with his reasoning, I hate to point out that the next governor might not care much about precedence.
To put this into perspective for all you Americans: In my country at least, we don't have "rallies" at all. It's not a thing. We have political debates and news broadcasts regularly where politicians from opposing parties are invited to speak their case, that's it. Of course, parties also have stands in public places where they give out pamphlets and promote their party, but in those places you'll likely find stands from a bunch of parties.
The way you do campaigning in the US is absurd to me.
I'm a person that regularly forgives people for "sins" committed in a time where what they were doing was considered normal by that time's standards but regressive by today's standards.
Honestly, it just feels refreshing to have a guy that's actually been pushing his ideals ahead of the status-quo and hasn't shirked from being "too radical".
Just remember to keep track of which BTU you're using
How in the world is (month/day/year) more sorted than (day/month/year)? I see two use-cases: Sorting things chronologically, in which case you want YYYY/MM/DD, or referring to nearby dates, where the year or even month can be assumed known implicitly, in which case you use DD/MM/YYYY. In no sane world does MM/DD/YYYY make sense.
Last I checked it looked like they had breached some major lines of defence, which means they may be past the worst of minefields etc. If they have room to manoeuvre for real by the time the russians send more forces the russians are going to have a real bad time trying to respond to this.
No they're not. Go read the actual article classifying them.
Also stop moving the goalposts. Fin whale catching has been heavily regulated, even in countries that still permit whaling (go read the source you linked in your other comment). You can't start with "Whales [in general] are endangered, and are being hunted for food" and jump to "This specific specific whale that is very heavily regulated, also by countries that permit whaling, is not quite endangered but vulnerable", and act like you have a counter argument to anything.
What you're running here is a masterclass in bad faith arguing: Moving goalposts, mis-citing sources, and jumping from bastion to bastion. All while nobody has even disagreed with your major opinion (whales shouldn't be hunted) but just pointed out that what you're saying is factually wrong.