Environmentalists pursue Japan's whalers

[wagyl]

The 272 is ICR and Kyodo Senpaku, from Fig 12 in the first link.

Just like Take has tripped himself up by forgetting to avoid mentioning demand for whalemeat and exposing a flaw in his argument, there are similar traps on the other side. If you say that there are double or more my figures supported indirectly by whaling, then the 30 billion Yen subsidies over 25 years doesn't look so excessive on a per person basis. Including the 2.28 billion yen diverted from tsunami relief. And if you start to mention that the whale watching industry in Japan has revenue in excess of the amount paid in subsidies to the whale hunt industry, you leave yourself open to claims that the subsidies are not so large after all (even though revenue and profit are two very different things). A minefield, strewn with statistics!

[Russell]

Wagyl, I just started to wonder, do you have any hobbies?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't give a fuck how many people earn their bread through whaling...

[wagyl]

Wagyl, I just started to wonder, do you have any hobbies?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't give a fuck how many people earn their bread through whaling...

If I want to call bullshit on "support for whaling is just vote buying by one specific political party" I need to show how many votes are potentially in play here, so I need to look for those numbers. Of course, that point is in fact moot, because all the major and middle sized parties support continued whaling. I have not researched other parties. You are welcome to, because Salty sure doesn't seem to care whether what he says has any basis in fact.

I don't think looking at the first page of a Google search for "number of workers in whaling in Japan" really counts as a hobby anyway. Nor is it an onerous task taking much time.

My life is rich in hobbies, many of which I do not share with the online world.

[Salty]

I call bullshit bullshit. I have not been able to find figures for the workforce for the coldstorage of the three quarters offered to market which goes unsold, or of processors assigned to whalemeat or restaurant staff employed at whalemeat specialist restaurants, but otherwise I have clear figures for a grand total of 272 employed in the whaling industry. Can we agree that an overall total throughout the industry is in the ballpark of 500? If you think this country is controlled by 500 votes, well, I know someone in deep south Aichi who you would get along fine with. He likes to dream of a nightmare world, too.

Source: http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files ... n-ifaw.pdf

But even more indicative of your bullshit, my challenge to you was to point to where political parties other than LDP state that they will expressly stop subsidising whaling. You haven't done that. And there is a reason why...

Exhibit One
Akahata, mouthpiece of the Communist Party: "Preserve the Tradition and Culture of Whaling"

Exhibit Two
Report in the Fisheries Economics Newspaper: "The Democratic Party Committee on Whaling Measures Resolves to Continue Scientific Whaling in the Antarctic"

So stick that down your blowhole and snort it.

Normally I would apologise for puncturing your nightmare with facts, but I have already decided that you are a serial bullshitter.

It is far more than a mere 500. Spouses, adult children, the gas station attendants, and the rest – say everyone who obtains, say 10% or more of their economic gain from the industry. And of course it isn`t just whales – dolphins, in fact all marine mammals – are `whale` once butchered. Whole towns are supported by the LDP vote buy – far more than 500 in a single town.

It is all about vote buying.

[wagyl]

How can a policy buy votes when there are no differences in policy between the parties?

What you are saying is like saying that the LDP are buying votes because they have a policy to use Yen as the currency for Japan. When the Democrats and the JCP have the same policy, that is not buying votes.

There are more than enough things the LDP supports and does which you can point to to be unhappy about, without making up complete fabrications about the differences in their policy to those of other parties. It just undermines your arguments and makes you a bullshitter. It might pay you to go back and look at what I said to Take just two posts above your original LDP post, where I said that telling an outright fib has serious effects on the future argument, and about the fragility of trust.

Also, I don't think you can point to a single gas station attendant who gains even 10% of his income through whaling.

[Takechanpoo]

Source: http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files ... n-ifaw.pdf

i shifted my stance and honestly recognize there is no reason for japan to stick to hunting whales at fixed intervals.
but that article still does not lead us to the conclusion that eating whale meat itself is bad, evil and savage and should be banned.
and its the core of this matter, still remains to be unsolved and its the most unconvinced point for most japanese and which makes them emotinal and obstinate.

i propose that the international society should allow to bulid the whale meat sharing system among
iceland, norway, japan and other whaling countries or communities.

[Samurai_Jerk]

How can a policy buy votes when there are no differences in policy between the parties?

What you are saying is like saying that the LDP are buying votes because they have a policy to use Yen as the currency for Japan. When the Democrats and the JCP have the same policy, that is not buying votes.

There are more than enough things the LDP supports and does which you can point to to be unhappy about, without making up complete fabrications about the differences in their policy to those of other parties. It just undermines your arguments and makes you a bullshitter. It might pay you to go back and look at what I said to Take just two posts above your original LDP post, where I said that telling an outright fib has serious effects on the future argument, and about the fragility of trust.

Also, I don't think you can point to a single gas station attendant who gains even 10% of his income through whaling.

While I agree that Salty's insinuation that it's a quid pro quo buying of votes is bullshit, I do think that if a major party were to come out against whaling it would cost them more votes than just those of the people in the whaling industry.

[Coligny]

No shit... The collateral would even include people that never eat fish.
People seing it as Japan might vs the world.
People seeing it as loss of traditionnal japan. (Grand'ma eat whales... Maybe...)
People fearing slippery slope effect (start with whales, then pachinko, soapland, next it's no more schoolgirl prostitution)

[matsuki]

but that article still does not lead us to the conclusion that eating whale meat itself is bad, evil and savage and should be banned.
and its the core of this matter, still remains to be unsolved and its the most unconvinced point for most japanese and which makes them emotinal and obstinate.

I don't think any of us here really thinks that "eating whale meat itself is bad, evil and savage and should be banned" except with consideration for mercury and other fun stuff in the meat. (same with Tuna and many other fish) If the levels contained were tested/labelled on the meat, it would be a non-emotional, factual issue...but instead we are left with claims on both sides. (I have no problem with whale bacon at the local izakaya but I sure as hell wouldn't give whale/dolphin meant to children/pets.

[Salty]

How can a policy buy votes when there are no differences in policy between the parties?

What you are saying is like saying that the LDP are buying votes because they have a policy to use Yen as the currency for Japan. When the Democrats and the JCP have the same policy, that is not buying votes.

There are more than enough things the LDP supports and does which you can point to to be unhappy about, without making up complete fabrications about the differences in their policy to those of other parties. It just undermines your arguments and makes you a bullshitter. It might pay you to go back and look at what I said to Take just two posts above your original LDP post, where I said that telling an outright fib has serious effects on the future argument, and about the fragility of trust.

Also, I don't think you can point to a single gas station attendant who gains even 10% of his income through whaling.

Look – stick your head in the sand all you want. Every gas station attendant in every whaling town gets far more than 10% of his income from those engaged in whaling. I have never said that the parties differed (so far) in what they say about fisheries – I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation. Fix the vote disparity and democracy has a better chance at sorting out which economic programs are economically sound and which are simply graft by another name. Hint – commercial whaling would die a quick death IMO.

But please do keep up the good work – excellence in name calling and sidestepping the real issues that Japan faces.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Salty, you seem to have a very loose definition of what it means to buy votes.

[wagyl]

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

So very difficult to reconcile that statement with

This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more.

Please explain how votes in Japan are suppressed.

[Salty]

Salty, you seem to have a very loose definition of what it means to buy votes.

Erm... providing money or items of economic value as quid pro quo for votes. Agreed?

[Salty]

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

So very difficult to reconcile that statement with

This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more.

Please explain how votes in Japan are suppressed.

Please do try harder to reconcile those two statements.

Vote suppression occurs thru managed vote value disparity AND economic programs that support votes for the LDP - which together, make it futile to vote (unless of course you vote for the LDP/LDP coalition, giving you a three to one vote value margin.)

[Samurai_Jerk]

Salty, you seem to have a very loose definition of what it means to buy votes.

Erm... providing money or items of economic value as quid pro quo for votes. Agreed?

I did say the LDP buys votes ... by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

How is that buying votes?

[Salty]

Salty, you seem to have a very loose definition of what it means to buy votes.

Erm... providing money or items of economic value as quid pro quo for votes. Agreed?

I did say the LDP buys votes ... by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

How is that buying votes?

OK - now I see the discrepancy. This is what I wrote (bold added...)

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Salty, you seem to have a very loose definition of what it means to buy votes.

Erm... providing money or items of economic value as quid pro quo for votes. Agreed?

I did say the LDP buys votes ... by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

How is that buying votes?

OK - now I see the discrepancy. This is what I wrote (bold added...)

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

With or without the bold text that statement means vote suppression and vote value manipulation are used to buy votes. Was that just written sloppily or is that what you meant?

[Salty]

Salty, you seem to have a very loose definition of what it means to buy votes.

Erm... providing money or items of economic value as quid pro quo for votes. Agreed?

I did say the LDP buys votes ... by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

How is that buying votes?

OK - now I see the discrepancy. This is what I wrote (bold added...)

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

With or without the bold text that statement means vote suppression and vote value manipulation are used to buy votes. Was that just written sloppily or is that what you meant?

Yup - guilty of being sloppy. I never was an Engrish teacher so never learnt my sentence structure write, plus I probably was on my second helping of sake at that point. So instead of `buy` - maybe `obtain`

[Mike Oxlong]

Salty, you seem to have a very loose definition of what it means to buy votes.

Erm... providing money or items of economic value as quid pro quo for votes. Agreed?

I did say the LDP buys votes ... by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

How is that buying votes?

OK - now I see the discrepancy. This is what I wrote (bold added...)

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

With or without the bold text that statement means vote suppression and vote value manipulation are used to buy votes. Was that just written sloppily or is that what you meant?

Yup - guilty of being sloppy. I never was an Engrish teacher so never learnt my sentence structure write, plus I probably was on my second helping of sake at that point. So instead of `buy` - maybe `obtain`

I kinda got the impression SJ was questioning your line of reasoning, not your ability in English per se. If him being a former Engrish teacher disqualifies him from questioning someone's argument, then we should ban former hostesses from being television presenters too. Just to be fair. Oh, wait...

[wagyl]

Mike, he is playing the get-out-of-jail-free "posting under the influence" card, so he is protected from all criticism, and free from any responsibilty.

[Mike Oxlong]

Mike, he is playing the get-out-of-jail-free "posting under the influence" card, so he is protected from all criticism, and free from any responsibilty.

Can I order those in bulk like with business cards?

[Samurai_Jerk]

Salty, you seem to have a very loose definition of what it means to buy votes.

Erm... providing money or items of economic value as quid pro quo for votes. Agreed?

I did say the LDP buys votes ... by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

How is that buying votes?

OK - now I see the discrepancy. This is what I wrote (bold added...)

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

With or without the bold text that statement means vote suppression and vote value manipulation are used to buy votes. Was that just written sloppily or is that what you meant?

Yup - guilty of being sloppy. I never was an Engrish teacher so never learnt my sentence structure write, plus I probably was on my second helping of sake at that point. So instead of `buy` - maybe `obtain`

I kinda got the impression SJ was questioning your line of reasoning, not your ability in English per se. If him being a former Engrish teacher disqualifies him from questioning someone's argument, then we should ban former hostesses from being television presenters too. Just to be fair. Oh, wait...

I was really trying to understand what he meant by buying votes. A quid pro quo exchange or money, gifts, or favors for votes is obviously buying votes. Pork barrel spending on useless bridges and whaling might not technically be buying votes but one could certain argue that it is and many do. Manipulating the vote legally or illegally through suppression or redistricting wouldn't qualify as buying votes by pretty much anyone's definition.

There's a spectrum between out-and-out buying votes and making policy to attract voters. At what point on the spectrum you've crossed that line isn't always so clear and can make for an interesting debate. Just calling something vote buying without qualification or evidence is pretty meaningless.

[matsuki]

Isn't just easier to say Japanese "democracy" bwahahahahahahahahha

Just like the TPP, rice and butter protection etc is Japanese "capitalism."

[Salty]

Salty, you seem to have a very loose definition of what it means to buy votes.

Erm... providing money or items of economic value as quid pro quo for votes. Agreed?

I did say the LDP buys votes ... by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

How is that buying votes?

OK - now I see the discrepancy. This is what I wrote (bold added...)

I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.

With or without the bold text that statement means vote suppression and vote value manipulation are used to buy votes. Was that just written sloppily or is that what you meant?

Yup - guilty of being sloppy. I never was an Engrish teacher so never learnt my sentence structure write, plus I probably was on my second helping of sake at that point. So instead of `buy` - maybe `obtain`

I kinda got the impression SJ was questioning your line of reasoning, not your ability in English per se. If him being a former Engrish teacher disqualifies him from questioning someone's argument, then we should ban former hostesses from being television presenters too. Just to be fair. Oh, wait...

Yes - which is why I clarified `obtaining` votes - but would add, `getting re-ellected` thru devious means. It clearly was not a clear sentence - a run-on?

[wagyl]

Isn't just easier to say Japanese "democracy" bwahahahahahahahahha

Just like the TPP, rice and butter protection etc is Japanese "capitalism."

Which country's "democratic" system brought us the word "gerrymander"?

Using the TPP to allow the legal system to be a weapon for corporations to use against the environmental policies of foreign sovereign powers is United States "capitalism." Protectionism for sugar, dairy (including butter), light trucks still continues, by the way.

[matsuki]

Isn't just easier to say Japanese "democracy" bwahahahahahahahahha

Just like the TPP, rice and butter protection etc is Japanese "capitalism."

Which country's "democratic" system brought us the word "gerrymander"?

Using the TPP to allow the legal system to be a weapon for corporations to use against the environmental policies of foreign sovereign powers is United States "capitalism." Protectionism for sugar, light trucks still continues, by the way.

Totally agree but aren't food and vehicles an apples and orangesminivans situation?

[wagyl]

I would call it a "looking after vested interests vs looking after vested interests" situation.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Which country's "democratic" system brought us the word "gerrymander"?

Gerrymander means to buy votes, right?

[Yokohammer]

I thought gerrymandering was tweaking district borders to gain political advantage. What am I missing ...


~ Tapatalking ~

[matsuki]

....yep, and it's total bullshit that it still happens today.