More on the whaling

I know I said I would not add any further comment about the whaling issue, but my brother has sent me another email, so in the interests of "fair" debate I will publish it. Also, the more I publish his email the more I believe my argument is strengthened - I'm sure the opposite of the effect he intended. Okay, so here is the latest incantation:

Hayden:
I'm gonna stop talking about this now because you've clearly been conned.

Brad:
Lets not call names. This doesn't add anything to the debate and when this is the first sentence of your reply, it rather dilutes any further message you try to get across.

Hayden:
But i do have to answer some of your points (sic) convenient you decided to split up my email rather than right it up as one coherent message.

Brad:
The reason I split up your email was to make it easy for me to reply to your comments, rather than having to refer back to each point one at a time This is messy and hard for people reading to follow. I don't think any of your meaning was lost.

Hayden:
You blame the video for being on the whaling boat, it had the only camera, but more importantly your point that it was biased when the article you referenced only interviewed Greenpeace, please be consistent in your criticisms, secondly putting a boat into reverse when you've already committed to hit it is nothing more than a PR gesture.

Brad:
I already said that it is very difficult to apportion any blame for the collision to either boat because we can not see what the Nissin Maru is doing. I did not blame the video. What we can see though is that the Artic Sunrise tried to take evasive action by putting it's props into reverse and by turning. If you have made a decision to ram a ship, then why pull out half way through - it doesn't make much sense to me. Posting only an article from Greenpeace was an oversight by me, so I corrected this in my next post by using an article from the New Scientist website - this magazine is science based and one of the most objective magazines I have read. I'm not sure if you checked out this link, but you might want to pay particular attention to the section on whaling and then report back to me on whether you still think it is sustainable.

Hayden:
As for democracy, Greenpeace shouldn't be responding to public opinion because they should have the environment's best interests at heart - not what the public wants, if they truly were environmentalists that's what they'd be doing. Also how on earth is a boat of that size expected to be able to maneuver out of the way of the Greenpeace boat it couldn't deliberately have hit it if it wanted to. The propaganda ministers quote was badly worded, nut (sic) basically what I'm saying is i could find no evidence of any truly scientific research, done by independent scientists on their website, that should be a concern to anybody who wants to donate to this organization.

Brad:
I think you missed my point here...
Don't look on the Greenpeace website for evidence, try New Scientist you will find bucket loads there.

Hayden:
The biologists i was referring to lectured me on conservation at the university of Canterbury, i believe, unlike the Greenpeace leaders that qualifies them to speak about it. It is not a logic fallacy to say i love all animals you eat steak, it doesn't mean you hate cows, who also suffer a brutal death, and i said i believe whales aren't being exploited.

Brad:
Cows are farmed, and although some people say this isn't sustainable, I believe it is. I am yet to see a commercial whale farm. When/if we do, then maybe I will be convinced that hunting whales is sustainable. I think whales and cows are a completely different "kettle of fish". Sorry to harp on the same point, but please check out the link to New Scientist in my previous post. Maybe the scientists will convince you that whales have and are being exploited.

Hayden:
But despite all this you have changed the debate, initially the debate wasn't over whether whaling is right or wrong, or whether the Greenpeace boat deliberately hit the whaling ship, for the debate we accepted that the boat did deliberately hit the whaling ship, an act which you supported then. So accepting that Greenpeace was at fault as you initially did, you still supported their actions bringing me back to my initial point, that it wasn't the manner of the G20 protest you had a problem with it was what they were protesting against.

Brad:
I thought we both agreed that violent protest was wrong. That debate finished and we moved on to something else - the whaling, which I'm sorry to say you initiated on the phone the other night. I disagreed with both the manner of the G20 protest (violence) and also what they were protesting about. Again, I think you missed my point.

Hayden:
Please post this email as well.

Case closed now
Hayden