US Naval Exercise, Cancelled to protect endangered whales Options

[pebkac]

I changed a couple words of your quote and would like to ask if the environazi movement is so advanced that THIS is actually up for debate.

Please. Tell me how it would have endangered national security for them to go elsewhere where there weren't dolphins that would be harmed by active sonar.

[celebritygooner]

Dude, your reply post to mine didn't even address the arguments I put forth.

Yes they did. In fact, they did ti so well, I didn't need to quote yours.

The first paragraph, the one about tuna, is a reply to your first. Killing is killing. You can't say people killing cows and whales killing dolphins is ok, but people killing dolphins isn't. Killing for food is ok but killing by accident isn't? What about killing for ivory or killing for fur or killing for religious ritual? Are those good enough? Killing is killing.

Edit: Twelve "killing"s in that paragraph.

The second paragraph, the one about Queequeg, is a reply to your second.

And the third paragraph, the one about naval bases, is a reply to your third. It be inconvenient for dolphins to have to find somewhere else to do what they do, but it's also inconvenient for humans to find a different place to do what we do. What's the difference? I don't see one.

[celebritygooner]

Please.  Tell me how it would have endangered national security for them to go elsewhere where there weren't dolphins that would be harmed by active sonar.

What if the dolphins move? Or if there's another animal at the new location? Bottom line: you're putting environmental protection on a higher pedestal than national security. We won't lose a war solely because of that. But what if next time it's birds hurt by a new radar? Or groundhogs hurt by a new bunker-busting bomb? Will China or Iran or North Korea limit themselves in equally environmentally-friendly ways? Hardly. And THAT endangers national security.

[Billy]

Celebrity....the sky isn't falling.

[celebritygooner]

Celebrity....the sky isn't falling.

That's not the point of the thread at all ... the "NSA wiretap scandal" wasn't the end of the world, but everybody said "that's it, the beginning of the end" because of the potentially dangerous precedent it set. This exercise is the first time I've ever seen environmental interests score a win vs the military (or second after Agent Orange / Napalm / Vietnam / etc) ... and I think that environmentalists scoring wins against the military is a very dangerous precedent.

[Seeker]

Yes they did. In fact, they did ti so well, I didn't need to quote yours.

The first paragraph, the one about tuna, is a reply to your first. Killing is killing. You can't say people killing cows and whales killing dolphins is ok, but people killing dolphins isn't. Killing for food is ok but killing by accident isn't? What about killing for ivory or killing for fur or killing for religious ritual? Are those good enough? Killing is killing.

Edit: Twelve "killing"s in that paragraph.

The second paragraph, the one about Queequeg, is a reply to your second.

And the third paragraph, the one about naval bases, is a reply to your third. It be inconvenient for dolphins to have to find somewhere else to do what they do, but it's also inconvenient for humans to find a different place to do what we do. What's the difference? I don't see one.

How did your first paragraph address my argument? I said you can't compare humans to killer whales. Humans have a choice whether or not to harm other living creatures. Secondly, I said killer whales kill them for food. Humans using active sonar would not be killing them for food.

Killing animals for food (cows, whatever) is A-OK. Killing dolphins using sonar is not killing them for food and it is not accidental since we know very well that the sonar is killing them.

How can you say we are killing dolphins by accident when we know good and well the sonar is killing them? You need to think your arguments over a little better before you spout them off in a public forum.

Next, I said that active sonar goes out for miles. Dolphins have no chance of escaping before the damage is done, hence the reason they beach themselves in an attempt to get out of the water.

In response to that paragraph you go off on a tangent about norwhals and a fictional character from Moby Dick. What on Earth does that have to do with my argument?

Last but not least I said dolphins have certain mating areas. Disrupting their natural habitat endangers them as a species.

You popped back that avoiding the mating areas forces to the Navy to waste time and money to go to other areas. This is the only argument in your incoherent rambling that actually made any sense. In response to that, I'm sure the Navy can float their submarines a few miles away from the mating grounds to perform their exercises since the Navy continuously fuels their submarines to patrol international waters. The time and money used to avoid mating areas is insignificant.

At least think your arguments through before you put them on Techsans so they're not so easy for me to rip apart. I like a challenge and you're not giving me one.

[Seeker]

That's not the point of the thread at all ... the "NSA wiretap scandal" wasn't the end of the world, but everybody said "that's it, the beginning of the end" because of the potentially dangerous precedent it set. This exercise is the first time I've ever seen environmental interests score a win vs the military (or second after Agent Orange / Napalm / Vietnam / etc) ... and I think that environmentalists scoring wins against the military is a very dangerous precedent.

Somone has to make sure the military isn't going around destroying our Earth will-nilly.

The American government is all about checks and balances. For a long time the balance was one-sided (in the military's favor), but with this recent ruling the balance has been restored.

Why are you against such fundamental American values such as checks and balances?

[celebritygooner]

How did your first paragraph address my argument?

We're not out just randomly hunting dolphins, Buffalo Bill-style ... they're "dying", if we're going to just make that jump (Some scientists believe the powerful sound waves emitted by underwater sonar equipment can harm sea mammals.), as a byproduct of our presence.

Is it acceptable to kill a rat or mouse that breaks into your pantry?
Or a wolf that tries to attack your flock of sheep?
What if rhinos "naturally" want to stampede your village ... can you shoot them?
What about killing animals for clothing and shelter?

My point: plenty of justified reasons for killing something, and the sonar example isn't even deliberate like the others. Killing is a fact of life, and I strongly suspect that alot of people (including the judge) just don't like the military.

[Seeker]

I have no problem with the military, but I think they should exercise a bit of caution and common-sense when it comes it comes to military exercises.

[celebritygooner]

Why are you against such fundamental American values such as checks and balances?

That's BS and you know it ... and since when did some random judge have the authority to check and balance the US Navy? Probably best that CINC, SECDEF and Congress be the only civilians who give orders or have the right to define ROE ...

[Seeker]

That's BS and you know it ... and since when did some random judge have the authority to check and balance the US Navy? Probably best that CINC, SECDEF and Congress be the only civilians who give orders or have the right to define ROE ...

Checks and balances is BS? By that same reasoning you're calling our Constitution BS for incorporating checks and balances. I thought conservatives were supposed to be pro-constitution?

Isn't that hypocritical of you?

[GOB]

way to blow his argument way out of proportion, douche bag


edit: he's saying that if this is happening, why can't some random county judge on the border of mexico tell the marines that they can just open fire because he believes it's bad for the citizens of this country and they're "invading" and threatening national security. not that i would have a problem with that, but i'm just saying.

[Psykopath]

douche bag

yikes!


?!?

[GOB]

?!?

do it!

[Seeker]

why would i ban anyone in this thread, i totally owned it and ripped my opponents a new a-hole

i ony ban people when i have work to do or i'm too lazy to sit around and argue with them