You don't have to directly target people to make your actions wrong.
But even with that said, I'm not exactly sure you're correct in implying that anti-whalers aren't targeting people. You don't consider deliberately ramming Japanese vessels as a foreceful act towards people? You can't say they're simply trying to damage the ships; that's illogical. There are people on board.

So, since you (and Ronin) seem to be ok with violence since "they did it first against something else", I suppose you both would have no problem at all with people who bomb abortion clinics or murder doctors who perform abortions. After all, they "started the violence" against innocent unborn children, and the legal efforts to outlaw abortion are stalled in red tape and political bickering while more innocent babies are killed every day, so you would excuse their extreme actions (which some might label "terrorism") too, right?

Or how about if PETA or the Animal Liberation Front murdered doctors who perform animal testing for vaccines that may cure deadly human diseases? More animals, such as lab rats and monkeys, keep dying, so anything they do to stop it is ok with you, right?

And in the same vein, how about those doctors experimenting using embryonic stem cells from destroyed human babies?

Or farmers who raise beef cattle, chickens, pigs, etc for human consumption?


Oh, the list just goes on and on... do you support violent action in all these cases and more because "they started the violence against animals/fetuses/whatever"?

The Japanese government?
 

A whole lot of deep discussion here concerning an equally deep issue... but I'm hoping there's more to the Japanese government than the whaling issue alone.

I know the main topic is about whaling, but concerning Japanese government as a whole, are there any other points to make against/ in favor of any other laws, policies or conduct of the Japanese government?

Please don't confuse my arguments with Tenchu's.

Although we're both against whaling.. our reasons are different.

As for your comparison of me with pro-life activists etc. I don't believe wilfully taking a human life over whaling is acceptable.

I'm pro-choice... but I believe that such a comparison can't be made because the nature of the two issues complicates things. For one the ocean is a SHARED eco-system which is why world consensus should not be ignored. A woman's body is hers alone and the belief that an embryo is a concsious living being is based purely on religion.

I like how the Japanese government have a pacifist constitution.

Although their military budget and technological capability are quite substantial outspending and being stronger on paper than Britain for example. The Japanese military is not allowed to take up combat roles in other countries for whatever reason.

Also Japan seems to be following the Chinese lead and investing a lot in Africa. Such investment could be good for the continent which has long been neglected by European and Western powers.

Japan is also one of the biggest contributors of net aid behind only the United States.. though before you go thinking the United States is so generous.. remember that it only contributes 0.01% of it's wealth to foreign aid making it one of the stingeist. Japan on the other hand is just below the 0.35% OECD average on 0.32% while the small nation of Sweden puts us all to shame with about 0.7%.

If you factor net aid in with percentage of wealth, I think that Japan is definitely one of the most generous countries in the world. Though of course most of my respect is aimed at the Swedes in this regard.

They sink ships.

By doing so, they put people's lives at risk. Or maybe I'm being over dramatic.
In any case, should they continue until they finally manage to seriously injure or kill someone?

That's not a level of escalation you would hope for; it would contribute to the already steady stream of blood. But it's not beyond them to accomplish with the methods they are using, in my opinion.

I did not. Not intentionally or unintentionally.

Passion is encouraged, but passion doesn't excuse accuracy.

First off, you don't have to get on the defensive and start attacking people. I said nothing hostile to you so I'd appreciate it if you'd watch your mouth. If I didn't care at all I wouldn't have looked at the forum post in the first place. I read the posts from the other pages. From you and the other people and I'm pretty sure that I saw it mentioned more than once that they were abiding within those guidelines when it came to hunting them to extinction. I also said if they are, then that's just wrong. Don't quote a single part of my statement and then use it to get pissy. I also didn't say that talking about this or educating people about it was pointless, but that ARGUING isn't going to fix it. Instead of snapping at people and waving your e-penis around, how about directing people to ways they can help? Writing letters to certain officials, a site that needs help with donations to the cause, things like that. There are more productive ways to make a point.

Not exactly what I'd call "polite" but whatever.

Yes, of course it's relevant. However, it's not their choice of targets I have a problem with; it's their choice of methods.

Scaring whales away from the fleet seems like an excellent way to disrupt hunting... no?

I'm not entirely convinced the issue revolves around a lack of options; There is a plethora of different options to choose from -- both direct and indirect. Some may be more effective than others, but any number of them can offer an alternative to the use of combative force, and that's important.

Violence should always be a last resort. Especially when the opposition isn't exactly intent on initiating a fight.

Many laws and rules can be interpreted as people wish, because they're not formulated precisely enough. That goes for both religious rules/laws and the ones that the governments put out there.