Icesave - please think before you apply

Cagey

We are talking about a miniscule amount of interest over & above a few other banks. If you don`t want to bank with them fine but don`t try to influence those who do. I am not for whaling but I do not think boycotts will have any effect on whether Iceland allow whaling or not.
I am not up to speed on this subject but is it not a fact that they are allowed, under licence to kill only a few especially now that the stocks are at ahigher level.
Sorry for the spelling mistakes StuSter but I left school 45 years ago when the standard of education was good but I was thick.

LizEstelle

Counter55 wrote:

Economic boycotts, rightly or wrongly, have been used in the past and are a legal and non-violent protest. It may be reasonable to argue that in some cases it won’t work or harms others, but it IS a “valid reason” if you think it will work and the person or country doing it is willing to accept the cost (in this case, possibly some loss in interest). An example of publicity and threat of boycotts ‘working’ are big western firms trying not to use child labour in the far east (although you could argue that the children are so poor they are better off earning money).

Do you see harm in people reminding others that icesave partly sells itself on being from Iceland with “Magical, ethereal landscapes. Bubbling geysers and molten magma. Majestic glaciers, spectacular waterfalls. Pure, fresh and untarnished spaces.”
They don’t mention the revived whaling industry do they? When a company partly sells itself on being from a certain type of country then it seems reasonable to point out the full picture.

If you don’t think boycotts work – fine, say that (or just ignore this thread).
If you don’t think whaling is wrong (or not worth the cost of a boycott) – fine say that (or again, ignore thread)
If you don’t think people should be able to decide if they want to boycott something with their own money then say that. But isn’t the whole site about people deciding what to do for themselves - with the help of others? And if people decide to try something that doesn't work, so be it - but the attempt is valid for them.

Completely and utterly spot on. Bravo.

Apparently, the 'validity' of an argument, as defined by certain people, is not allowed to extend to moral judgements.

Whether a particular course of action is EFFECTIVE can be debated, probably until the cows (or whales) come home... but this comes a very distant second in the 'race of ideas' to the primary issue itself.

What I shall not allow them or anyone else to question is my genuine moral outrage on this matter, NOR the method by which I choose to express it. The Icelandic government has specifically sanctioned this glorious 'tradition' - this government was elected democratically; it is NOT a question either of the government being a dictatorship or of some rogue element in the population acting illegally. Therefore, quite legitimately and logically, I deem it my right - and the right of anyone else who so wishes - to take personal action in whatever way I wish.

Paul_Herring

Sapphire wrote:

We are talking specifically about whales here - which are warm-blooded animals.

You appear to have missed quite a few posts then. (And, indeed, the subject of my post!) Of relevance..

Please refer to post number 100, paragraph 1 on this thread for a response to your attempt to divert the issue.

Please refer to the post I was answering for another attempt to divert the thread.

Sapphire

Paul_Herring wrote:

You appear to have missed quite a few posts then. (And, indeed, the subject of my post!) Of relevance.. Please refer to the post I was answering for another attempt to divert the thread.

I haven't missed any of your posts (unfortunately). For me, NONE of your 'arguments' holds water.

Counter55 and LizEstelle have summed up what needs to be said on this issue as far as I'm concerned. As I've said before, each of us has a choice on where to draw the line on issues such as these, and each of us has a right to express ourselves whether you like it or not.

[Deleted User]

I have added yet more money to my icesave account and have also donated a sum to water-aid, the sum will be covered by the extra interest.

This is a bunkum thread. How about people practicing what they preach instead of getting all emotional over a whale (I do not support whale killing by the way)

I eat veggie and I have used hemp bags and not plastic bags for years and I could go on a lot more about what I do to `help` the world environment and it`s poorest people. For goodness sake

Paul_Herring

Sapphire wrote:

[...] I haven't missed any of your posts (unfortunately)[...]each of us has a right to express ourselves whether you like it or not.

Quite Right!!

Cardew

Sapphire wrote:

This type of apologetic argument reminds me of conversations I used to have with a couple of the editors in the publishing house where I worked before the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Apologetic argument – how so?

The Eskimos have been killing whales in a far more barbaric and cruel fashion without being affected by the whaling ban that has been in place for the past few years.

So where were all the protesters during this period?

Why not call for a ban against produce & banks from USA, Canada and Russia for allowing their citizens to indulge in such practices?

No! The hysteria I spoke of, that generates threads like this, is because the media has thrust distasteful images into our living rooms.

I suggest that most of the protestors should salve their consciences by giving a few pounds more to Green Peace and go and have a nice nut roast for dinner.

The carnivores can convince themselves that the animals they are eating enjoyed a full and happy life(as someone on this forum laughingly stated) and sacrificed themselves content in the knowledge that we would enjoy eating their flesh.

LizEstelle

Sapphire wrote:

I haven't missed any of your posts (unfortunately). For me, NONE of your 'arguments' holds water.

Counter55 and LizEstelle have summed up what needs to be said on this issue as far as I'm concerned. As I've said before, each of us has a choice on where to draw the line on issues such as these, and each of us has a right to express ourselves whether you like it or not.

Yes, Sapphire ... and it is precisely this right which, in effect, is being objected to.

I wonder whether I am the only one here to detect the unmistakable whiff of: 'how dare you raise the uncomfortable subject of morality and disturb my moneymaking'.

whambamboo

LizEstelle wrote:

Yes, Sapphire ... and it is precisely this right which, in effect, is being objected to.

I wonder whether I am the only one here to detect the unmistakable whiff of: 'how dare you raise the uncomfortable subject of morality and disturb my moneymaking'.

Why yes!

Let's start 50 threads on each forum on why we should avoid say Virgin Credit Cards (or whatever) because they are run by MBNA, a US company, and the US is involved in state-sponsored kidnap from third countries and torture.

Then eventually the whole forum would be as useless as this thread is.

Alternatively we could lock this crap for once and for all, or at the very least move it to the Discussion Time forum.

jamesd

markw5 wrote:

it will only take a few years for countries such as Iceland & Norway to decimate it again

The estimated population is 25,000 or so. Assuming 3% growth rate in population, somewhat less than typical for whales, the population is increasing at 750 a year.

To decimate the population would require fishing 2,500 whales in one year, 277 times what Iceland is doing. It's a long way from that to decimation and even if we ignore growth the "few years" to decimation is hundreds of years at this rate.

I can undertand you being upset but please try to cut the hyperbole level a bit.