UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

It all winds up on a dinner table by Ritz_Just_Ritz · 2014-03-31 00:47 · Score: 5, Funny

So I'm shocked....just shocked, I say, that there was no scientific objective .

Perhaps the science part was developing more efficient harpoons.

Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by B33rNinj4 · 2014-03-31 00:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Nah, more efficient grilling and seasoning techniques.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 00:57 · Score: 0

Surely they were researching the effects of massive consumption of whale meat in human population. For science!
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Ash+Vince · 2014-03-31 01:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Nah, more efficient grilling and seasoning techniques.
The Japanese mastered that years ago, you do not get much more efficient cooking than eating it raw :)

--
I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by will_die · 2014-03-31 01:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Guess I will have to just rely of Norway for my whale meat supply. It is rather tasty.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:29 · Score: 0

It WAS science! ... culinary science!
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Dogtanian · 2014-03-31 01:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've tasted whale, it isn't tasty.
Apparently most younger Japanese aren't much into it themselves either, and the "tradition" isn't, really. From this report:-

For [Mitoshi Noguchi] there is nothing wrong with eating whale, it reminds him of school lunch.

"When we were growing up we didn't have ample supply of food, so this was meat for us, our protein," he says. "So when we eat it now it's very reminiscent. It's delicious."

Mr Noguchi is in late middle age, but on the same table is one of his much younger colleagues, Yoshitaka Takayanagi, born after the meat was phased out in Japanese schools. Few Japanese eat whale regularly these days, especially the young, and he has only eaten it twice before.
This covers the phenomenon in general in more depth:-

So why does Japan exert so much diplomatic effort on this issue? The official line is that whaling is an integral part of Japanese culture, a practice dating back hundreds of years.

That isn't quite true. A few coastal communities, like Wakayama, have been hunting whales for centuries, traditionally with hand-held harpoons.

But the rest of Japan only became familiar with eating whale during the 20th Century, as modern ships with harpoon-guns became available. Whale meat was especially widespread in the difficult years after the Second World War, when it was seen as a cheap source of protein.

But as incomes rose, people switched to imported beef, or fish like tuna and salmon. With such an abundance of high-quality protein available these days, few Japanese see the point in eating whale, which doesn't taste that special.

There are other reasons for Japan's determined campaign.

"If the current ban on hunting whales is allowed to become permanent," says Hideki Moronuki, at the Fisheries Agency, the government department leading the campaign, "activists may direct their efforts to restricting other types of fishing."

As Japan consumes more fish than any other nation, it worries about possible curbs on its fishing activities in open seas for species like tuna.

Officials also like to claim that whales damage fish stocks because of the quantities they eat, although this is largely dismissed by scientists in the rest of the world.

But perhaps the biggest factor is resentment of being told by other countries what Japan can and cannot do.

"Why do people in the west make such a big deal about our very limited hunting of whales?" asks Hideki Moronuki.

"How would they feel if we told Americans they couldn't hunt deer, or if we told Australians to stop hunting kangaroos?"

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Cyberax · 2014-03-31 01:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not really. Cooking adds 10-20% to actual caloric content of food. Mainly because it breaks down complex molecules, making them easier to digest.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Talderas · 2014-03-31 02:17 · Score: 4, Funny

What You Meant:
Cooked food contains more calories per gram.
What I Heard:
Cooking food makes you fatter.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Cyberax · 2014-03-31 02:25 · Score: 2

Well, yes. Both are true. If you eat raw food then you'll most likely be losing weight, as it's very hard to get enough calories from raw food to sustain overweight. So if your aim is to lose excessive weight then avoiding cooked foods is probably a good ides.

If you're thinking from a perspective of a shipwreck victim stuck on an island then cooking food (especially meat or starchy food) is a very good idea, because you'll need much less of it.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by interkin3tic · 2014-03-31 03:08 · Score: 2

Also interestingly, the US was the one promoting it right after WWII.

General Douglas MacArthur encouraged the surrendered Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the USA and Europe).[35][36] The Japanese whaling industry quickly recovered as MacArthur authorized two tankers, converted into factory ships (Hashidate Maru and Nisshin Maru), with whale catchers to once again take blue whales, fins, humpbacks and sperm whales in the Antarctic and elsewhere.[35]
Wiki If you object to the US telling you to stop eating whale meat, remember that it was the US who told you to start. Maybe start by rejecting that first order we gave you and refuse to eat whale meat?
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by interkin3tic · 2014-03-31 03:10 · Score: 1

Oops. The wiki link
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by ljw1004 · 2014-03-31 03:15 · Score: 4, Informative

I'd had it twice. The first time raw in Japan it was okay.
The second time, seared, in Iceland, it was sublime. Like a combination of the best bits of sashimi and the best bits of high quality steak, somehow unexpectedly combined in one delicious whole.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by slashmydots · 2014-03-31 04:07 · Score: 1

No, the science was how whale internal organs cure cancer and give you more spirit energy for yoga. Now that's hardcore, book science right there.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by mrchaotica · 2014-03-31 04:48 · Score: 2

"Why do people in the west make such a big deal about our very limited hunting of whales?" asks Hideki Moronuki. "How would they feel if we told Americans they couldn't hunt deer, or if we told Australians to stop hunting kangaroos?"
That Hideki Moronuki fellow doesn't know what he's talking about: at least in the American case, deer are overpopulated to the point of becoming a pest (mostly because their natural predators, e.g. wolves, are endangered). When there aren't enough interested hunters to go kill them for food or sport, we have to pay people to cull them anyway.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 05:17 · Score: 0

I have tried grilling and cooking it myself few times. Depending on your timing and cooking skills it goes from tasting like fish-oil soaked beef to tasting better than the best beef you can get in a restaurant.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 05:27 · Score: 0

[[... it's very hard to get enough calories from raw food to sustain overweight ]]
Unless, say, you were eating pure adipose tissue...
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by meerling · 2014-03-31 05:43 · Score: 1

It's known that humans have a unique and specialized digestive system that is adapted for eating cooked foods.
You just don't get as much nutrition, not just calories, from raw food.
It is true that cooking does 'destroy' some of the nutritional value, but if eaten raw, you still receive far less than if you'd have eaten the cooked food.

If you want to lose weight, sure you could eat raw food and exercise, or you could eat less cooked food and exercise, or just exercise more.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by gstoddart · 2014-03-31 05:45 · Score: 1

somehow unexpectedly combined in one delicious whale

Fixed that for you. ;-)

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Aighearach · 2014-03-31 06:18 · Score: 2

If you think of "calories" as "makes you fatter," my advice is just say no to calories. It solves the problem for both of us.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Aighearach · 2014-03-31 06:21 · Score: 1

While you're mostly correct, the nutrients destroyed by cooking are generally different ones than are made available by cooking, so the over-simplification as stated is slightly misleading.
Generally what is destroyed is provided by greens, and so it makes sense that humans have traditional practices of eating some of their greens raw.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Cyberax · 2014-03-31 06:25 · Score: 1

Nutrients are not really destroyed by cooking (unless we're talking about some extreme cooking methods). Some vitamins are destroyed and that's why you should eat at least some raw vegetables and greens, but general nutrients remain untouched by cooking.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by GameboyRMH · 2014-03-31 06:49 · Score: 1

"Fish oil soaked beef" is how I've seen the taste described most of the time. I once also heard it described as "fishy liver."

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Algae_94 · 2014-03-31 06:51 · Score: 1

I'm glad someone picked up on that quote. Deer in the US (and I believe Kangaroos in Australia) exist in massive quantities. Hunting deer for hundreds of years has yet to endanger their populations.
Another point I'd like to mention is that these land animals live their entire lives within the borders of a single country (unless they're right on the Canadian or Mexican borders). Hunting deer in America will have no effect on deer populations in Asia or anywhere else in the world. Wales are a migratory ocean species. Hunting those will have an effect on the quantity of whales that visit different countries territorial waters. That makes whale populations and policies that effect their populations a global issue.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by GameboyRMH · 2014-03-31 06:52 · Score: 1

I just got an image in my head of a yoga class turning into a Bleach/DBZ-style fight scene XD
"This will be the end of you! I have eaten whale for extra spirit energy! YUUUAAAAAAAA!!!!"

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 07:17 · Score: 0

Yeah, I'd like a source on that. It's widely known that cooking releases nutrients (principally vitamins and minerals) that would otherwise be unavailable to the digestive system, through destroying cell membranes and such, especially in plant based food.
The only way I can imagine 10-20% more actual calories is if you measure cooked food vs raw food by weight, because water is going to leave the material, effectively concentrating the nutritional payload. e.g. Of course 1/4lb raw beef with 80% water content is going to have fewer calories than 1/4lb cooked beef with 20% water content.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Arker · 2014-03-31 07:35 · Score: 0

"That Hideki Moronuki fellow doesn't know what he's talking about: at least in the American case, deer are overpopulated to the point of becoming a pest (mostly because their natural predators, e.g. wolves, are endangered)" It may be that you as well are missing some information. American deer are plentiful not only because their natural predators got beat back, but in large part because of conservation efforts by hunters all around the country that has preserved plenty of natural habitat for them to flourish in. This is the meaning of 'conservation' - we are not trying to turn the world into a petting zoo, we like to eat venison. The whaling treaty was sold to the Japanese (and Norwegians) as being about the same sort of conservation - for whales. Over-whaling under tragedy-of-the-commons conditions had reduced whale stocks to dangerously low levels for many species, and it was desperately needed. Today, several commercially useful species have recovered populations levels to the point where whaling should be permitted to resume. And on the demand side, well demand is deeply in the toilet. Even if whaling were permitted with no restrictions starting tomorrow demand is so low it might not even be a problem. The moratorium on harvest of the specific species the Japanese have been taking should beyond any doubt have ended many years ago. Animal-rights activists in countries where whale-meat is not considered something civilized people eat have seized on it as a wedge issue, and successfully blocked all efforts to acknowledge the fact officially, leaving the Japanese to exploit the scientific exemption to allow their people to do what the international body should have authorized long ago. This is the context you appear to be missing. The courts decision may well result in Japan withdrawing from the whaling treaty entirely. A lot of coherent hatred would be directed at them around the world for this, but in truth it would probably be their most reasonable option.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by ezzthetic · 2014-03-31 11:25 · Score: 1

We don't actually "hunt" kangaroo as such, but never mind.

--
You know what they say about opinions. They're all fabulous!
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Camembert · 2014-03-31 12:44 · Score: 1

I have eaten it once in Norway. My friend and I thought it was excellent. It is a very dark meat that tastes somewhere between a beefsteak and a tuna. I understand the reasons for a ban, I can also understand that people like the meat.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 21:28 · Score: 0

The Japanese aren't about research or caring for or preserving the animal kingdom...
they're fucked up little small dicked fetishists who think harvesting and killing
particular fantastical species will give them bigger cocks. No, sorry, fuck the Japanese on
this one, ok. The Japs should be hunted down and stopped just like in Whale Wars.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Cyberax · 2014-03-31 21:56 · Score: 1

No, the comparison is done by dry weight of both pre-cooked and post-cooked food. The main advantage seems to be the lesser need for proteolytic enzymes (protein synthesis is expensive!) and de-polymerization of starches.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 22:46 · Score: 0

Note that e.g. Minke whale, the whale hunted by Norway and Island, is very far from any danger of extinction. So far that they are categorized as "Least Concern", the same as Homo Sapiens.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 09:16 · Score: 0

And rubbery.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table by demonrob · 2014-04-01 22:08 · Score: 1

But do they research the dear and the roos? Maybe the now-unempolyed Japanese researchers can come over and research these animals instead?

Excellent, but .... by DaMattster · 2014-03-31 00:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

How will the UN enforce this? This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture as I don't think sanctions are likely to hurt Japan all that much.

Re:Excellent, but .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:01 · Score: 1

How will the UN enforce this? This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture as I don't think sanctions are likely to hurt Japan all that much.
UN itself can't enforce this, but other countries with a bone to pick with Japan *cough* China *cough* could take this as more ammunition against Japan. Going from simple PR spin, to banning of whale meat imports, to where their imagination can go.
Re:Excellent, but .... by wisnoskij · 2014-03-31 01:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Whale Wars: UN Edition?

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Chinese eat dogs, are responsible for the death of countless sharks killed just for their fins, and are the endpoint of the majority of illegal ivory trade which kills thousands of endangered animals each year. I hardly think they will be the ones taking Japan to task on this.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Zatchmort · 2014-03-31 01:16 · Score: 2

Japan exports a lot of products, particularly consumer electronics. They also depend heavily on imports for things like food. Any sort of tariffs or sanctions related to those would certainly make an impression.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:17 · Score: 1

Easy, just dope the whales with some radioactive materials. Not enough to harm the whales but enough so the japanese will be too scared to eat them.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:19 · Score: 5, Informative

How will the UN enforce this? This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture as I don't think sanctions are likely to hurt Japan all that much.
Japan has agreed to abide by the UN courts rulings, which have asked for am immediate stop to the practice
Re:Excellent, but .... by jonwil · 2014-03-31 01:20 · Score: 2

Given that it was Australia who launched the court challenge in the first place, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, Australia does next.
On the one hand, Australia doesn't like the Japanese whale slaughter. But on the other hand, Australia has good relations with Japan as a trading partner that they need to maintain (Japan buys a lot of Australian beef for example)
Re:Excellent, but .... by Talderas · 2014-03-31 01:20 · Score: 1

Yeah. We know how the Japanese have responded to economic sanctions.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Excellent, but .... by circletimessquare · 2014-03-31 01:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're absolutely correct, but hypocrisy has never stood in the way of politics

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Excellent, but .... by jythie · 2014-03-31 01:25 · Score: 2

What better way to deflect criticism then to jump on a bandwagon and attack another country for its own issues?

Besides, they can always claim (esp to their own people) 'but that is different!'. The US does it with our farm animals and fishing after all.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Xest · 2014-03-31 01:26 · Score: 5, Informative

It's not so much how the UN can enforce it, it's the fact that it makes it legal for other countries to take action against Japan over it without themselves becoming victims of legal cases from Japan.
For example, Japanese ships entered New Zealand's exclusive economic zone earlier this year - something boats are normally allowed to do without needing explicit permission. Now however there's nothing to stop the New Zealand coast guard from arresting them and seizing their ship for carrying out an illegal activity if they were to pass through that zone again. Effectively Japan could no longer call such act an act of piracy which would be the risk of New Zealand or similar decided to go ahead and do that without this ruling.
This is why Japan has said it will abide by the ruling, because whilst it's embarassing for them to lose their whaling argument at long last, it'd be even more embarassing if they said "fuck the UN" and then got their ships legally seized by a foreign government and the Japanese crew paraded on TV as arrested for engaging in illegal activity. They'd then have to stop whaling for the reason that their ships had been seized, rather than that they'd accepted the ruling and given it up themselves - this is the least embarrassing route for them now, hence why they're taking it.
Re:Excellent, but .... by dunkelfalke · 2014-03-31 01:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

Well, they can always ask Sea Shepherd.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Excellent, but .... by mean+pun · 2014-03-31 01:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

How will the UN enforce this? This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture as I don't think sanctions are likely to hurt Japan all that much.
Since Japan is using UN resolutions/verdicts against China in its geo-political battles, they do not want to be seen as flouting UN verdicts themselves.
Also, whale meat is actually not that popular in Japan, so much so that the whalers have to dump their stocks: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/op.... The reason Japan has persisted in whaling despite all the protests is a mixture of lobbying, nationalist sentiments, and fears that banning whaling will open the door to more restrictions of fishing rights.
I'm sure some Japanese politicians will thank the gods of their choice for this verdict.
Re:Excellent, but .... by oh_my_080980980 · 2014-03-31 02:03 · Score: 1

That's Korea moron.
Re:Excellent, but .... by oh_my_080980980 · 2014-03-31 02:04 · Score: 1

And that's going to stop why?
Re:Excellent, but .... by oh_my_080980980 · 2014-03-31 02:06 · Score: 1

You mean China. Most "export" products are made in the countries that consume those products. Most manufacturing is done outside of Japan.
Re:Excellent, but .... by wonkey_monkey · 2014-03-31 02:12 · Score: 2

It's both, numbnuts.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Talderas · 2014-03-31 02:20 · Score: 1

Because economic warfare is the only course of action you have available if you don't want to be party to actual warfare which is generally looked down upon without an obvious aggressor.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Excellent, but .... by countach · 2014-03-31 02:22 · Score: 1

Good question. Personally I think Australia should just send a destroyer down there and sort it out, but I doubt we'll have the guts.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 02:23 · Score: 0

Yeah, but this could be used as excuse when other countries try to point their fingers to China killing sharks, they can now point to Japan killing whales and claim the West showing double standards again.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 02:41 · Score: 0

Personally I think Australia should just send a destroyer down there and sort it out.
If only they would... that'd be great.
Re:Excellent, but .... by ColdWetDog · 2014-03-31 03:06 · Score: 1

Easy, just dope the whales with some radioactive materials. Not enough to harm the whales but enough so the japanese will be too scared to eat them.
You're too late. The Japanese already thought of that idea.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Excellent, but .... by imrahilj · 2014-03-31 03:16 · Score: 2

What's so much better about eating pigs than dogs? People in the US think it is somehow odd or disgusting to eat dogs, but we are just fine with eating pigs which are arguably more intelligent animals.
Re:Excellent, but .... by myth24601 · 2014-03-31 03:18 · Score: 1

How will the UN enforce this? This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture as I don't think sanctions are likely to hurt Japan all that much.
Simple, the UN Anti-Whaling commission will be called together. Japan will serve as Chair of this commission.

--
No matter where you go, there you are.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Triklyn · 2014-03-31 05:45 · Score: 1

and some americans eat raccoons, and they have people hands.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Aighearach · 2014-03-31 06:47 · Score: 1

The UN won't enforce it. Volunteers will enforce it.
Re:Excellent, but .... by Stan92057 · 2014-03-31 07:10 · Score: 1

Hmm does the UN even have a navy? Yes i could DuckDuckGo it just dont want too. Spoils the conversation if everything is DuckDuckgoed.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none
Re:Excellent, but .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 09:35 · Score: 0

I checked the article and it is only about fish near the plant. It is not about any whales. It does show that the idea might work. Have the increased radiation level caused the fishermen to catch less fish in the affected area?
Re:Excellent, but .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 10:46 · Score: 0

well we wont actually have any destroyers until 2016 when the Hobart class enters comission, probably leaving it a little late to the party
Re:Excellent, but .... by thegarbz · 2014-03-31 12:22 · Score: 1

Yes they will immediately stop scientific whaling. Then they will withdraw from the treaty and then replace the "RESEARCH" sign on the side of the Nisshin Maru with the word "yum"

one word can come out off my throat : by polar+red · 2014-03-31 00:55 · Score: 2

My throat can only make one sound :
DUH !

--
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?

Next: eavesdropping does not stop terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 00:56 · Score: 0

Well, one can hope.

It's all fun and games... by CFBMoo1 · 2014-03-31 00:57 · Score: 0

.. when putting whale meat on the dinner table until a giant black spray painted bounty towel roll core parks itself in Earth's oribit and dangles a glowy soccer ball over the planet to bag us for lack of whales. Shattner and Nemoy won't be around forever Japan!

--
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~

Re:It's all fun and games... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:37 · Score: 1

If you're trying to make a snarky Star Trek IV reference, I'll thank you to spell Leonard's name properly.

Researching mass extinction! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 00:58 · Score: 0

Ground-breaking work.

Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-03-31 00:58 · Score: 1, Troll

Japan is a country in which "truth" means nothing.

They can say that the "experiment" they carried out in their whaling exercises are for "scientific research" but all of us know that the whale meat that you can get in many sushi restaurant inside Japan came from those whaling "experiments".

And the whales are *NOT* the only animal that they killed. They kill dolphins too !

You do not have to believe me, just click on the following link to find out what them Japanese are doing ...

http://www.linktv.org/about/bl...

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-03-31 01:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

As opposed to those other countries, that haven't invented 'using euphemisms to evade established law' yet?

I'll be right back, the illegal enemy combatants in administrative detention are causing trouble again.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:34 · Score: 2, Funny

And the whales are *NOT* the only animal that they killed. They kill dolphins too !
If the reason for the exclamation mark is that dolphins are considered cuter than whales then I think you are preaching to the wrong crowd.
This article is already a bit off by being posted on Slashdot rather than to pages that specializes in wildlife, environment or Japanese food.
Please don't make me take the side of Japanese whalers just to spite you.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by NatasRevol · 2014-03-31 02:38 · Score: 1

Well, they're most probably smarter, self-aware communicators too.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by quenda · 2014-03-31 02:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

There is an east-west cultural difference here.
In the West, we have "plausible deniability", where we can't be 100% sure they knew they were telling lies.
In the East, a plain-as-day outright lie is more polite than saying "no, we withdraw from your treaty.".
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 03:43 · Score: 1

And the whales are *NOT* the only animal that they killed. They kill dolphins too !
Dolphins are caught, but not really delivered to the Japanese people. Dolphins are only delivered to people with certain connections meaning you can't buy it in a shop and it isn't on a (public) menu in any restaurant. Most people in Japan are unaware of dolphin hunting. It is made legal by the elite and eaten by the elite, but at the same time the elite orders the police to prevent anybody from seeing what actually goes on as the public is assumed to disprove. The Japanese governments have been caught doing the same with more or less all nuclear accidents. They have had close encounters with meltdowns, leaks and fatalities, where at least one was the person who just happened to live near a power plant. In fact the government denied leaks from Fukushima-1 even after it blew up. Eventually they had to admit leaks, but then it wasn't spreading into the sea. Now they have closed beaches for bathing due to radiation as well as banned fishing in a certain area.
Whaling and dolphin hunting are what they are (a bloody mess). However it is just a symptom of an elite living their own elite life hidden from the general public. This isn't a Japanese only problem, but a problem everywhere. Once in a while we get news of politicians doing personal stuff with tax money or similar. People wait months for surgery where some doctors admit that they will do people with a 24 hours notice if they know the right people (friends/family of other doctors etc). One which scream of special rules for an elite (providing it's true) is a law made by a city council in the US. Supposedly they should have made a city wide law stating that city council members can't get speeding tickets.
Yes dolphins and whales being caught is a problem, but it's a symptom of a more serious problem, which is likely worldwide.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 04:08 · Score: 0

As opposed to those other countries, that haven't invented 'using euphemisms to evade established law' yet?
I'll be right back, the illegal enemy combatants in administrative detention are causing trouble again.
What are they doing now? Stealing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFile-sharing?
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-03-31 05:13 · Score: 1

The examples I provided aren't really 'plausible deniability'; but 'distinction without difference', which seems to be exactly the same thing that the Japanese are doing here.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 05:17 · Score: 0, Insightful

Stop framing this as being about animal cruelty/cute animals shouldn't be killed.
Japan fights the whale ban not because they actually like whale, but as an issue of food security. Japan is an island nation with limited amounts of land. They want the assurance of knowing that, if for some reason they cannot rely on meat imports, they have an alternative. Australia has an incentive to prevent whaling, since it is a major exporter of beef to Japan.
If you really want to protect whales, drop the scientific catch requirements, give Japan a very limited harvesting quota, enforce it, and be done with the charade. This reduces the possibility of Japan giving the rest of the world the finger and hunting whales indiscriminately, as Norway already does.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 05:23 · Score: 0

There are some who claim that a lot of dolphin meat is being re-branded as whale meat in stores. i.e. Sales statistics indicate that much more meat is being sold as whale meat than is actually caught. Note that dolphin meat is very high in pollutants like mercury.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by meerling · 2014-03-31 05:46 · Score: 1

It is known that certain types of cetaceans do use personal names to refer to specific members.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by meerling · 2014-03-31 05:49 · Score: 1

The market for whale meat has been dying for decades and demand is at an all time low last time I saw the reports on it. Of course, the established industry doesn't care and will keep flaunting the treaty because they can and they still make money at it.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Wootery · 2014-03-31 06:22 · Score: 1

Interesting enough that it's worth a link.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Aighearach · 2014-03-31 06:29 · Score: 0

"Illegal enemy combatants" are based in Law. The same Geneva Conventions that spell out the requirements for how to treat prisoners of war also describe what is needed to be legally regarded as a soldier. Combatants that disguise themselves as civilians are explicitly illegal. It creates a real and serious danger to civilians, because dual-use or ambiguous targets are legal targets. So dressing as civilians makes the civilians look like combatants, and is seen as an evil act.
Illegal Enemy Combatants are NOT legal soldiers, but a type of war criminal, and may be held indefinitely, executed, or otherwise processed unilaterally. If they had been wearing uniforms, then they would have all sorts of rights.
My advice is to learn the details of the situation first, and then make wild extrapolations and comparisons afterwards.
And I'll give you a hint: you can know what is legal and illegal, and still take either side on what should be legal and illegal! Learning is neutral.
Compare to whaling, where Japan is clearly lying about their intent. They take stomach samples, true, but they're not doing any actual science; they're not learning or attempting to learn anything other than how to hunt more effectively. All of the local politics in Japan on the issue is about protecting the cultural history of whaling for food. And then they make official claims which deny it.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Aighearach · 2014-03-31 06:32 · Score: 1

Sales statistics indicate that much more meat is being sold as whale meat than is actually caught.
The word "actually" is false there. Sales statistics indicate more meat labeled as whale is being sold than the amount of whale meat declared under their supposed "scientific" quota.
One theory is that other types of meat are being substituted. Another is that they're not declaring all of their whale catch.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-03-31 07:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

You missed (or deliberately ignored, or agree with) the central untruth that made that concept suspect: Is dressing your soldiers up as civilians in voilation of the Geneva convention, and do such soldiers forfeit assorted protections afforded uniformed forces Yes. So far, so good.

If somebody isn't a soldier and commits a crime in civilian cloths (as civilians are wont to do), can you argue that he violated the Geneva convention? Hardly, it only applies to soldiers.

That is the big lie of 'illegal enemy combatants'. Had the State of Terrorstan actually sent disguised soliders in, the illegality of their activity under the Convention would be cut and dry. No such state exists. Instead, the US decided to apply the standards of the Geneva Convention (selectively) to certain non-state actors who, being non-state, didn't act in uniform, in order to keep them in limbo between the protections afforded civilians and the protections afforded regular soldiers.

I'm well aware that the Geneva Convention takes a dim view of spy types; but it is wholly orthogonal to the treatment of civilian criminals, no matter how noxious.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 07:31 · Score: 0

It's not about market. It's all about keeping capacity. They need to have a plan B for when there is war, or a disruption in normal food supplies (they're very afraid of mad cow disease), or price fluctuations. Raising 100 million livestock is just not an option to the Japanese, and once you lose a specialty industry it'll take some time to get it back.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by aphelion_rock · 2014-03-31 16:42 · Score: 1

The whaling is 100% scientific.
They shoot a harpoon at a whale and it dies.
The scientific research is trying to work out why the whale dies.
The keep shooting harpoons at thew hales and they keep on dying
On it goes...
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 22:09 · Score: 0

(In case I didn't make this clear, the parallel is almost exact with what Japan is doing: 'scientific whaling' is totally a thing under the relevant conventions on whaling, and a licit activity. However, just making science-gestures during commercial whaling doesn't make it 'scientific', and the judgement has been that Japan is operating a commercial fishery under the guise of 'science'. Since they aren't actually doing science, the rules governing commercial whaling apply.

In the same way, there are a variety of ways that a state agent can forfeit the protections afforded regular soldiers under the Geneva convention. However, treating somebody as a state agent who has done so requires that they be a state agent, otherwise the rules governing treatment of civilians apply. We've been quite enthusiastic about pantomiming military-ness; but, like Japanese 'scientific whaling', the show doesn't make it so. Unless they are military, it doesn't much matter what category of the Geneva convention they fall under because they are civilians.

Same flavor of misdirection. )

Zero Fin by Sponge+Bath · 2014-03-31 01:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Somebody set up us the harpoon.
All your whale are belong to us.
For great justice.

Re:Zero Fin by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 09:40 · Score: 0

Make your brine.

Thankfully, we can still do research in simulation by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-03-31 01:06 · Score: 1

Continue the noble science against UN oppression with the Cetacean Research Simulator!

Buried the lede by barlevg · 2014-03-31 01:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the Washington Post version,

Australia had sued Japan at the U.N.’s highest court for resolving disputes between nations

Hold the phone--you mean there are ways to solve disputes between nations that *don't* involve firing artillery, invasion or threatening sanctions? Has anyone told North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine or the United States?

Re:Buried the lede by Talderas · 2014-03-31 01:23 · Score: 1

The UN court is basically non-binding arbitration.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Buried the lede by criten · 2014-03-31 01:25 · Score: 1

Or Sea Shepherd?
Re:Buried the lede by Xest · 2014-03-31 01:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, the problem is for it to work you need civilised nations that actually listen. Unfortunately that doesn't apply to any of those you listed (and I add my own nation to the list - the UK).
Getting Putin to listen though when he's off on a paranoid rant about how the EU wants to make him eat croissants is a no-go, much less Kim Jong Un who actually thinks he's a good leader and the whole of the rest of the world is always wrong about everything.
This is one of those rare occasions where it's actually worked because the loser has accepted the ruling rather than saying "Okay, I lost, but I don't care, I'm going to carry on as I was anyway" or alternatively, "Fuck that, I'm not even going to go to that court because deep down I know I'm wrong and know I'll lose", the latter of which is what Argentina has done each time the UK has offered to let the court rule on the Falklands for example.
Re:Buried the lede by barlevg · 2014-03-31 01:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Really, I'm just shocked every time I read about the UN doing *anything* productive. In truth, the UN probably does a lot of good throughout the world. For instance, I applaud them for keeping their election observers on the ground in Afghanistan, whereas two other groups are withdrawing theirs after the Kabul hotel bombing (the withdrawal of foreign observers is quite clearly one of the Taliban's goals).
Re:Buried the lede by __aagmrb7289 · 2014-03-31 02:12 · Score: 1

This is one of those rare occasions where it's actually worked because the loser has accepted the ruling rather than saying "Okay, I lost, but I don't care, I'm going to carry on as I was anyway" or alternatively, "Fuck that, I'm not even going to go to that court because deep down I know I'm wrong and know I'll lose", the latter of which is what Argentina has done each time the UK has offered to let the court rule on the Falklands for example.
Why do you imagine that Japan is going to give a shit about this ruling? I don't see any reason to believe that anything is going to change.
Re:Buried the lede by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 02:13 · Score: 0

Sea Kittens!
Re:Buried the lede by Xest · 2014-03-31 02:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Because they've said they will?
That was kind of a big pointer. It does require you to RTFA though.
The quote in question from TFA:
"Japan said it would abide by the decision but added it "regrets and is deeply disappointed by the decision"."
Re:Buried the lede by khallow · 2014-03-31 02:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hold the phone--you mean there are ways to solve disputes between nations that *don't* involve firing artillery, invasion or threatening sanctions? Has anyone told North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine or the United States?
Nations aren't ignorant of other means of settling disputes. They just believe the dispute is more likely to be settled in their favor if they break out the artillery.

For example, Russia would risk the loss of Sevastopol as a naval port, if they were to resort to a UN court. By merely taking over the Crimea, they don't have that risk. It's simply the better move for them.
Re:Buried the lede by Talderas · 2014-03-31 02:29 · Score: 1

1. Because whale meat is not that popular.
2. Not abiding by it causes them more trouble than abiding by it.
3. Most importantly, Japan has been fighitng this issue as the frontline of the battle for fishing rights. It was a battle that was going to be lost eventually so it was serving as a delaying action.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Buried the lede by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 02:31 · Score: 0

No, because nothing ever actually gets solved there, just used as political fuel for moves elsewhere (like backing up sanctions).
Re:Buried the lede by barlevg · 2014-03-31 02:35 · Score: 1

I really find this to be apropos.
Re:Buried the lede by jrumney · 2014-03-31 02:36 · Score: 2

The fact that Japan has always claimed to work within the rules of the IWC shows that they do give a shit about the ruling on some level. If they wanted to continue blatantly commercially whaling without even the slightest pretence of giving a damn, they could have joined Norway and Iceland in giving the finger to the IWC long ago.
Re:Buried the lede by khallow · 2014-03-31 02:42 · Score: 1

I posted not because there was too much sarcasm in your post, but because there was too much unicorn.
Re:Buried the lede by nojayuk · 2014-03-31 03:19 · Score: 1

Once you actually look, you find out the UN does a lot of productive stuff like peacekeeping and conflict monitoring, elections, health and welfare, education etc. It's just that sometimes the UN doesn't do as the American government tells it to do so it is by definition ineffective and unproductive.
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
Re:Buried the lede by argStyopa · 2014-03-31 03:19 · Score: 1

NO country complies with such rulings, unless it's in their interest do so, or unless they are compelled.
The problem with the US (who has since WW2 largely complied even with rulings against itself, contrary to your implication above) is that moronic recent political leaders don't understand that following such rules (except in extremis) IS in the US's broader long-term interest in fortifying the legal conduct of all other states.

--
-Styopa
Re:Buried the lede by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2014-03-31 04:59 · Score: 2

From the Washington Post version,

Australia had sued Japan at the U.N.’s highest court for resolving disputes between nations
Hold the phone--you mean there are ways to solve disputes between nations that *don't* involve firing artillery, invasion or threatening sanctions? Has anyone told North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine or the United States?
That crap gets rated as Insightful and gets 5 points? Wow. Tell you what. Name ONE, just one, UN resolution considered to be against North Korea that they have willingly obeyed. In fact, to be blunt, the whole reason that there are two Koreas instead of one unified and horribly backwards united Korean under Kim family despotism is because the UN Security Council authorized the use of force against North Korea's invasion when the Soviet Union infamously boycotted the meeting, only to find out the Security Council actually could take a vote without them there.
Re:Buried the lede by barlevg · 2014-03-31 05:13 · Score: 1

Tbh, I'm as surprised as you are. I was aiming for some "Funnys" but expected some "Flamebaits."
Re:Buried the lede by GameboyRMH · 2014-03-31 07:08 · Score: 1

Everyone tried to tell something to North Korea regarding their death camps but then they said "mind your own business," Russia and China supported them, and that was the end of that.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Buried the lede by swb · 2014-03-31 07:30 · Score: 1

I wonder if its political calculus that makes recent political leaders work this way, or if it's whatever's in the water that seems to make everyone, especially the rich and powerful, just assume that they can blatantly disregard all the rules, all the time.
Usually the ones on top flavor it with "on advice of legal counsel" or "based on our interpretation of the rules" and then something about how they have chosen to define up as down or black as white.
Maybe it's *always* been this way, but it sure feels like at some point the whole culture just looked at the normal rules and decided they didn't apply. And maybe it's just the nature of the rules, maybe once they became so absurd and insanely illogical it was an expected outcome.
Re:Buried the lede by Xtifr · 2014-03-31 10:10 · Score: 1

Or even just the headline of TFA (if the A itself is too much to handle):
"Japan accepts court ban on Antarctic whaling"
(Emphasis mine.)
Re:Buried the lede by argStyopa · 2014-03-31 11:34 · Score: 1

Not just because I'm a bit of nihilist on Mondays, I suspect that it has a great deal to do with the ossification of the various national and international systems.
We've had the longest span of great-power peace really ever in modern history...of course that doesn't actually mean "peace", but it does mean an absence of outright war.
Which means that there haven't been any cataclysmic shocks to the system. The dirt's not getting turned over, so to speak. The closest thing to a 'rewrite' since 1945 was the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact...but this means that the West has churned on obliviously for 70 years. The only time I can think of before that was the end of the 19th century and likewise we had a massive agglomeration of wealth and governmental systems that disregarded the masses (until they needed them in 1914, of course...).
More importantly to this discussion, in re the US, is that the US has been essentially free from any threat since 1812....200 years of safety has made our elites indolent, lazy, and self-indulgent because frankly they haven't been put up against the wall by an angry mob since well out of memory.
As long as they keep us distracted with TMZ, the Kardashians, the latest MMO release (and for the "engaged" the very meaningful red vs blue arguments between Republicrats and Democans, or are we arguing over abortion today?) the benighted public is like a cheerful herd of milk cows, happily tromping out in the morning, munching nice grass during the day, to be called in the evening to be milked. It's not a bad deal for the cows, actually.

--
-Styopa
Re:Buried the lede by david_thornley · 2014-04-01 05:00 · Score: 1

Luttwak argued, in one of his books, that UN peacekeeping can be counterproductive, by not letting wars go to their conclusion. The Egyptian strategy in the 1973 war was basically to cross the Suez to defensible positions, dig in, and wait for the UN cease-fire. This means that wars do not go to a conclusion, leaving previous grievances in place (neither stomped nor relieved), and allowing a weaker country to start a war with confidence that the UN will impose a cease-fire before it can lose too much.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Route for the Whalers by cgfsd · 2014-03-31 01:12 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Is is just me, or does anyone else route for the whalers in Whale Wars?

Re:Route for the Whalers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 02:00 · Score: 0

just you
Re:Route for the Whalers by es330td · 2014-03-31 02:02 · Score: 0

When the activists boarded the whaling ship I was praying the people on the whaling ship would simply throw them overboard. I know the Sea Shepherd had Zodiacs deployed to pluck people from the water if needed, but I promise you anybody that went in that water will think very long and hard about risking having that happen a second time. It was obvious that many of the people on the Shepherd thought this was all fun and games but a quick dose of reality in the form of freezing water would probably change their attitude. I also thought the whaling ships needed someone on board with a 12 gauge shotgun to take out the bags of rancid butter being flung at the ship. Unlike most flying targets, those were large and slow moving and should have been easy to blow open.
Re:Route for the Whalers by Triklyn · 2014-03-31 02:42 · Score: 2

not so much rooting for whalers, as rooting against the anti-whalers. an altruistic act does not make good a completely wretched person.
for example, being a dick doesn't invalidate what assange did, but at the same time, what he accomplished doesn't make him less of a dick.
Re:Route for the Whalers by ColdWetDog · 2014-03-31 03:12 · Score: 1

I'm not sure where you are going with that.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Route for the Whalers by GameboyRMH · 2014-03-31 07:11 · Score: 1

Maybe it's an Abe Simpson reference?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

treating creation like a scammable public by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:17 · Score: 0

insensible in every sense, offending & upending all of our senses & spirits at once http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nazi+zion+conquest+water+food+air&sm=3 UNhelpful out of charter

All I can say is "It's about fuckin' time." by Chas · 2014-03-31 01:18 · Score: 1

Japanese "research" whaling has always been a wink and nod piece of bullshit propaganda.

I'm glad even an organization as spineless, dickless and useless as the UN actually stood up and realized it.

Now, will anything COME of this? Probably not.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:All I can say is "It's about fuckin' time." by jythie · 2014-03-31 01:28 · Score: 1

Well, they have always realized it, I doubt anyone in power actually believed Japan's legal argument. It is really just a matter of who's citizens are upset in what proportions to being able to effect the political careers of various leaders.
Re:All I can say is "It's about fuckin' time." by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:38 · Score: 0

I'm glad even an organization as spineless, dickless and useless as the UN actually stood up and realized it.
Now, will anything COME of this? Probably not.
People often accuse UN for being spineless. The reason UN doesn't act on anything is because a few nations have veto rights. Remove those and UN will become a lot less active. The only problem is that the US and Russia will both leave the UN if their veto rights are revoked.
Re:All I can say is "It's about fuckin' time." by JeffAtl · 2014-03-31 11:23 · Score: 1

The only problem is that the US and Russia will both leave the UN if their veto rights are revoked.
Why single out the US and Russia? Do you think that China or France would stay if their veto rights were revoked?

Meanwhile back in reality by criten · 2014-03-31 01:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

... tuna is actually more endangered than the minke whales Japan catch. Australia is a large producer of tuna. "Whale doesn't even taste good" is a common anti-whaling statement, yet neither does tuna. But Japan like tuna, so they won't protest it.

Re:Meanwhile back in reality by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:55 · Score: 0

Tuna does taste good, or maybe it's the dolphin in the tuna cans. Tuna as a stake or what ever isn't that good.

Hollow, meaningless, toothless ruling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 01:29 · Score: 0

"'The court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not 'for purposes of scientific research' pursuant to [the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling].'

The court also did not nullify the existing permits, or enjoin them being issued any new permits, because it's just a powerless UN court that can't actually enforce any of its rulings.

Background by Hans+Adler · 2014-03-31 01:31 · Score: 2

I have said it before, but I think it's worth repeating:

When it comes to exploiting (other) natural resources in a high seas region it's important to prove that you have been economically active there for a long time, and still are. The whaling is an investment. This investment requires that the programme is pretty openly non-scientific. Just 'scientific' enough so a sufficient number of other countries in the International Whaling Commission can be convinced to allow it, where necessary through a bribe. But no more so, because at some point later Japan will have to prove that it was an economic activity, not research.

Irony by RabidReindeer · 2014-03-31 01:32 · Score: 4, Funny

In the USA, a large quantity of peanut butter is now being destroyed because it comes from a plant that had experienced Salmonella contamination, although supposedly not at the time this particular lot was made.

In the mean time, Japan - a country notoriously obsessed with cleanliness and purity - is eating discarded remains of scientific experiments.

Re:Irony by meerling · 2014-03-31 05:54 · Score: 1

If they had to treat all biological remains from scientific research as biological waste & biohazards and dispose of properly or face jail time and HUGE fines, that would also kill their whaling industry. You can't sell biohazards or biological wastes.

So I guess we'll never know... by dohzer · 2014-03-31 01:50 · Score: 2

So I guess we'll never know if a whale can survive a harpoon to the cerebral cortex. This is a dark day for science.

Not Irony by sjbe · 2014-03-31 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

In the mean time, Japan - a country notoriously obsessed with cleanliness and purity - is eating discarded remains of scientific experiments.

There is not and never was any science involved. This was a fig leaf to protect commercial interests, nothing more. These were obviously fishing vessels for commercial purposes and everyone has known that from day one.

Re:Not Irony by umafuckit · 2014-03-31 03:00 · Score: 1

Yes, of course, it's always been an obvious sham.

--
soylentnews.org
Re:Not Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 05:20 · Score: 0

True dat.
At least some other countries bother to register and track stomach content of the beasts in order to understand their diet and behaviour further than before.
Re:Not Irony by thegarbz · 2014-03-31 12:20 · Score: 1

Of course there is science in this. It's about how many minke whales you can take out of the population before the population collapse. The west uses plastic tags on feet. The east uses explosive harpoons.
Re:Not Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 03:46 · Score: 0

In the mean time, Japan - a country notoriously obsessed with cleanliness and purity - is eating discarded remains of scientific experiments.
There is not and never was any science involved. This was a fig leaf to protect commercial interests, nothing more. These were obviously fishing vessels for commercial purposes and everyone has known that from day one.
If the mods agreed with you, then they shouldn't have modded you "Insightful". After all, you wouldn't be providing much insight by stating the obvious; you would merely be raised to the rank of "Captain".
On the other hand, if they disagreed with you, then it seems that they most certainly wouldn't have modded you "Insightful".
Does anyone understand how the modding system works these days?
Go ahead, mod me a troll now.
Ahhh, I see how the mod system works now - by pure ignorance. You mods are a bunch of fucking sheep that have to be told what to do and how to think.
Only here on Slashdot can you put forth a perfectly logical and insightful argument, ask to me modded a troll, and actually get modded a troll.
It's no wonder I haven't bothered signing in under my username for the past 10 years. It isn't worth the effort when you have to deal with so much fucking ignorance.

Meanwhile back away from moranity by Uberbah · 2014-03-31 02:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

tuna is actually more endangered than the minke whales Japan catch

Actually that's a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Siberian tigers are even more rare than tuna, so Japan should be able to haul in as many bluefins as they can catch. Or something.

Re:Meanwhile back away from moranity by criten · 2014-03-31 03:12 · Score: 1

Actually that's a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Siberian tigers are even more rare than tuna, so Japan should be able to haul in as many bluefins as they can catch. Or something.
Actually thats a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Unless I am mistaken, siberian tigers aren't a marine animal poached for food supply south to south-east of the Australian coast.
Re:Meanwhile back away from moranity by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 08:54 · Score: 0

It's not a red herring. It's saying 'party X is mad because party Y is hunting endangered species' while party X is hunting a species more in danger. People in glass houses...
Re:Meanwhile back away from moranity by Uberbah · 2014-03-31 11:34 · Score: 1

Unless I am mistaken, siberian tigers aren't a marine animal poached for food supply south to south-east of the Australian coast.
I'm not mistaken, because your point was that caring about X is stupid when Y is more endangered. Maybe next time you could try coming up with a line of reasoning that isn't both stupid and irrelevant, since Japanese seafood options aren't limited to 1) whales 2) bluefin tuna.
Re:Meanwhile back away from moranity by Uberbah · 2014-03-31 11:58 · Score: 1

Hitting submit instead of preview FTW. Blaming Australia for overfishing is another red herring because 1) they're working on reducing quotas, as opposed to Japan 2) most of the overfishing has been done by....Japan and 3) most of the international trade of bluefin goes to....Japan.

Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good? by HnT · 2014-03-31 02:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok? It's not like our culinary preferences are not endangering other species and destroying their natural habitats.
But when it's whales, all of a sudden it matters?

--
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain

All those scientists will lose their jobs by DrXym · 2014-03-31 02:20 · Score: 2

How are they going to put food on their plate now?

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 02:30 · Score: 0

So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok? It's not like our culinary preferences are not endangering other species and destroying their natural habitats.
But when it's whales, all of a sudden it matters?

The simplest reason being that the whales killed were wild and not bred to be eaten? Not to mention endangered? And it did not "sudden matters", it mattered for a long time, you just haven't been paying attention.

Yeah, destroying rain forest is bad, but breeding cattle is just the indirect cause, so it is much harder to convince people to ban cattle to save the forests, cuz you need to also convince them the forests will not be destroyed for other reasons.

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by Sockatume · 2014-03-31 02:54 · Score: 2

1) It all matters. The same people who oppose rainforest devastation for food oppose whaling for food. The same people who don't give a shit about the rainforest don't, generally speaking, give a shit about whales.

2) They're a slow-breeding, unfarmed animal. Whaling has essentially been outlawed* because they can't sustain being hunted for food.

*Countries can go cap-in-hand to the UN to ask for a quota, for example to preserve small-scale traditional hunting. It goes without saying that Japan's present whaling operation doesn't meet the cultural criteria.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Re: Truth and Countries by interkin3tic · 2014-03-31 03:02 · Score: 0

1. That's a tu quoque fallacy that makes even less sense than a normal tu quoque fallacy. Just because more than one country lies doesn't make it the truth. Furthemore, Taco Cowboy is not a nation. You're assuming he's from the US and also that he endorses the US policies. That's stupid. His criticism is not hypocritical necessarily.

2. No one is saying that eating meat or wearing fur is for science, at least not in the US.

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by umafuckit · 2014-03-31 03:03 · Score: 1

So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok?

Nobody is saying the former is bad and the latter is OK. It's not an either/or situation: both are bad and people are trying to do something about both. In theory, however, it should be easier to do something about the whales than something about the rainforests.

--
soylentnews.org

One more reality TV show out of business... by RobertM1968 · 2014-03-31 03:09 · Score: 1

So much for "Whale Wars" and the gang of the Sea Shepard. Ah well.

Seriously though, laudable as the decision (that would require others to enforce) is, I'm baffled that it took this long (almost 4 years) to make a decision on something that clearly wasn't scientific in nature.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by criten · 2014-03-31 03:15 · Score: 1

No, its just the historical culture of Japan that doesn't matter.

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by ColdWetDog · 2014-03-31 03:18 · Score: 2

Remember folks, the US does allow whaling. Alaska native tribes are still allowed a subsistence hunt for bowhead whales.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by imrahilj · 2014-03-31 03:19 · Score: 1

So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok? It's not like our culinary preferences are not endangering other species and destroying their natural habitats. But when it's whales, all of a sudden it matters?

Finally, a voice of reason. The truth of the matter is (I think) that we like to feel good about ourselves "doing something". If all the whaling in the world stopped, it would have no effect on most humans. If all of the factory farms in the world stopped raising animals in the inhumane conditions that they are raised in, it would have a huge effect on many humans. People want to be seen as pro-environment, but most people aren't actually willing to sacrifice their own comfort to do so. Hence the hypocrisy.

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 04:30 · Score: 0

Is it really an (good) argument that the animals are not bred to be eaten? What about other (land) hunting or fishing? Personally I find it harder to justify that we keep breeding animals for the sole purpuse of our consumption than us killing an animal which has gotten to live a natural life untill we kill it. Offcourse, if you are against any kind of killing of animals for eating, then whaling is bad. But if you accept e.g moose-hunting then it seems to me that you should be perfectly fine with the whale hunting that is done sustainable (notably the hunting of Minke Whale).

When that is said, the Japanese hunting of endangered whale-species is assholish. And calling it science is cowardly.

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 04:32 · Score: 0

Regarding (2): Whaling can absolutely be done sustainably, like is beeing done with the Minke Whale. Offcourse the hunt needs to be regulated to avoid the tragedy of the commons, but this holds for most spiecies we harvest.

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 04:37 · Score: 0

Star Trek IV is a documentary that educated most of the world about the value of whales. Unfortunately Japanese speak a different language and were unable to understand it

And it only took them 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 04:44 · Score: 0

Who would have expected a UN court could move that fast.

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 04:47 · Score: 0

They also didn't mention the fate of the blue-crested chicken.

Zero credibility.

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 04:47 · Score: 0

In theory, however, it should be easier to do something about the whales than something about the rainforests.

Um, why? You may be right and all, but it's not immediately obvious to me. It's not as if there is a fenced off whale pen that you have to go to in order to hunt whales, where they can check your ID and say "sorry pal, looks like your quota is filled." Unless you mean, it's easier to station UN police at every port on the ocean than it is to station them at every village in the rainforest.

"Japanese Whaling Ban Won’t End the Whale Wa by walterbyrd · 2014-03-31 04:48 · Score: 2

> Norway and Iceland, two countries that continue to whale, get around the IWC’s 1986 moratorium by simply rejecting it.

http://time.com/43674/japanese-whaling-ban-wont-end-the-whale-wars/

There is a different way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 06:01 · Score: 0

It's called sucking my cock. No nations have signed on yet, but your dad and mom have been quite enthusiastic about this new approach.

May I have a source please? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 06:56 · Score: 0

I'd like to know your source, not because I'm doubtful, but because I wish to learn more.
+ Leonard

Re:May I have a source please? by denzacar · 2014-03-31 07:09 · Score: 1

http://blogs.discovermagazine....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...
http://www.sciencefriday.com/s...

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Re:May I have a source please? by Frnknstn · 2014-03-31 08:41 · Score: 1

Those are three book reviews of the same book. Do you have a primary or secondary source?

--
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Re:May I have a source please? by denzacar · 2014-03-31 09:44 · Score: 1

Do you have Google on your computer?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Re:May I have a source please? by Frnknstn · 2014-03-31 19:27 · Score: 1

... well, no, I do not. Sadly my computer lacks the processing power and storage capacity to host a web search engine on the scale of Google. Luckily, a company called "Google, Inc." run Google on a set of public-facing webservers, so feel free to use those.
See, I can purposefully misunderstand simple requests, too. I asked for a primary or secondary source. The implied question was "As you have more knowledge about this than I do, can you recommend a credible primary or secondary source that is freely available?"

--
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Re:May I have a source please? by denzacar · 2014-03-31 23:58 · Score: 1

Ah! Excellent!
So you do speak SOME sarcasm, but lack finer understanding of philosophy behind the language, or you just can't pick up my dialect.
Let me explain.
1 ) Just because I'm intrigued by the topic someone mentioned enough to look it up myself, and then provide the links for others with just about the same level of interest as mine - does not mean that I have additional expertise or information that I'm withholding for any reason.
You can tell all that from my original post cause if I did have more info, posting the fourth link would be trivial.
Or writing a sentence saying where to find it.
It was all "implied" by the copy/paste link-dump style of the post.
2 ) Even if I did for some inexplicable reason have the info you need while lacking the will to share it - I am not your personal search engine or database.
Feel free to look it up yourself.
You clearly know what you are looking for, you clearly know of existence of search engines and the internet - go look it up yourself.
3 ) Arguing against the quality of freely provided information while asking the provider to get you more of it - makes you come off as spoiled and whiny.
Plus, you aggravate that by showing us that you have the time (enough to hang on slashdot, enough to reply...twice), interest for the subject, tools and ability to look it up yourself - but no will to do so on your own.
I on the other hand while maybe having time, tools and ability, completely lack the necessary level of interest or motivation for such an "adventure".
There you go...
Those seven words expanded to several paragraphs. Now go and google the stuff you want for yourself by yourself.
Or get your manservant or personal assistant to do it for you. I don't care. It's not my job.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Re:May I have a source please? by Frnknstn · 2014-04-01 01:22 · Score: 1

I think we both have very different understandings of how this conversation unfolded. Here's what I saw:

Cyberax: Cooking adds 10-20% to actual caloric content of food. Mainly because it breaks down complex molecules, making them easier to digest. Leonard: I'd like to know your source, not because I'm doubtful, but because I wish to learn more. denzacar: [links that are not valid source material] Frnknstn: Those links are not good. denzacar: [sarcastic avoidance] Frnknstn: [likewise sarcastic response] denzacar: [... ... looong post ... ...]

How discussions are supposed to work:

Frnknstn: Those links are not good. denzacar: You missed something, [...] Frnknstn: Ah, I see, thanks.

Alternatively:

Frnknstn: Those links are not good. denzacar: Yeah, those are all I found. Frnknstn: Ah, I see, thanks.

--
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.

So what. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 07:08 · Score: 0

fact of the matter is they hunt whales that are not endangered. We slaughter cows by the millions, and force them into a live of captivity and servitude. If its not dangerous the over all population is say let them eat all the tasty sea cow they want.

I get most of the tree huggers will attack this post saying blah blah morality etc, but they are either the same people that would say eating any meat is wrong, or they're a bunch of hypocrites that just think eating certain animals is wrong because they like them more and saw a movie on it once, either way i have no respect for their opinions

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 07:13 · Score: 0

that species of whale is not endangered, doing it under the guise of something else is wrong but if they just went out there saying "we gonna go get us some tasty sea cow for eatin" i'd be like "can i has some" then they'd be like no cuz you live in "the land of the free" and "home of the brave" who don't have the freedom to eat the tasty sea cow or balls to admit its not all that different than eating the land cow

Re:Thankfully, we can still do research in simulat by GameboyRMH · 2014-03-31 07:25 · Score: 1

LOL nice! XD

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re: The meaning of 'conservation' by Shag · 2014-03-31 07:42 · Score: 1

American deer are plentiful not only because their natural predators got beat back, but in large part because of conservation efforts by hunters all around the country that has preserved plenty of natural habitat for them to flourish in. This is the meaning of 'conservation' - we are not trying to turn the world into a petting zoo, we like to eat venison.

Or as someone high-up in a sustainability organization once said to me after a beer or two, "Sustainable development is about your grandkids being able to shoot Bambi, too."

--
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.

Route for the Whalers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 10:49 · Score: 0

so you navigate for the Japanese fleet?

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by JeffAtl · 2014-03-31 11:29 · Score: 1

They're a slow-breeding, unfarmed animal. Whaling has essentially been outlawed* because they can't sustain being hunted for food.

That's true, but if Japan did start farming whales for consumption, that would still be unacceptable to those currently opposed to Japan's whaling.

The main reasons are that whales are somewhat cute and are considered by some to at least as intelligent as humans.

South Park by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 11:45 · Score: 1

Fuck you Whale, and fuck you Dolphin!

Kangaroo... by thegarbz · 2014-03-31 12:17 · Score: 2

Well I don't trip over whales every time I take a step into the ocean. Kangaroo is more akin tuna. There are millions of them around. In many places they are considered a pest and are culled not for eating but because they destroy the ecosystem. If whales were that prevalent that you had to kill them to maintain a balanced ecosystem I'm sure we wouldn't have a problem with the Japanese killing them for food, err I mean research.

Re:Kangaroo... by soccerisgod · 2014-04-01 01:50 · Score: 1

[...] and are culled not for eating but because they destroy the ecosystem.
Good thing, then, that most animals don't carry guns. They'd have to shoot us :)

--
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?

Easy by mykro76 · 2014-03-31 14:09 · Score: 1

If the ruling is not followed we will be giving the Japanese tourists specially selected koalas to cuddle.

http://2012bloghoax.s3.amazona...

Sea Shepherd can eat my ass by ShaunC · 2014-03-31 15:00 · Score: 1

Sea Shepherd can eat my ass. All the way up in there, rim me, baby. Tickle with your tongues and latch onto the corn and peanuts. And I guess you're cool if I shart butyric acid?

You're nothing but terrorists on the open ocean.

--
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!

Re:Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 16:31 · Score: 0

It's probably because Alaskan tribal hunting methods are more sustainable than the commercial Japanese whalers. I'm just guessing here but I don't think the Alaskans are using large whaling ships like the Japanese do.

Scientific? Sure! by hochl · 2014-03-31 22:48 · Score: 1

They're trying to find out how many whales you can kill in one day, and as everybody knows you need many samples for a meaningful statistical result!

Slashdot Mirror

UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

188 comments