Boycott JAPAN, ICELAND, NORWAY

MORPH3US

jmarko wrote:

Is taking action against someone who does not support whaling that leads to their loss of livelihood an acceptable means to an end, the end being of whaling?

The above assumes that I believe there will be a loss of livelihood, which I don't so I think thats where we will have to agree to disagree.

As for locking people up without trial and bombing the underground, its not a case of whether I think its acceptable, its a case of the people who are doing it think its acceptable and thats why they do it.

Telling them they are wrong won't (or doesn't seem to) stop them, hence the need to take action.

An example that you may or may not see as a good one is your suicide bomber example. Killing someone is morally wrong, but if someone was about to walk into a crowded shopping centre and detonate a bomb, I would not hesitate to kill them if that is all I could do to stop them....

Anyway, better do some work...

M

maow425

LizEstelle wrote:

I am outraged by the decisions of these countries to resume killing of whales.

I would just like to point out that Norway lodged a legal objection to the IWC's ban on whaling, and have been whaling for many years. They have still been given a quota of how many whales they are allowed to catch, and have only exceeded this quota once since 1994, and that was by one animal. This year's quota was 1052 animals, and only 527 animals have actually been caught. Norway also only hunt Minke Whale, which is considered to be a low risk group, not an endangered species.

The following info taken from Wikipedia:

"Norway has registered an objection to the International Whaling Commission moratorium, and is thus not bound by it. In 1993, Norway resumed a commercial catch, following a period of five years where a small catch was made under a scientific permit. The catch is made solely from the Northeast Atlantic Minke whale population, which is estimated to consist of about 110,000 animals. Norwegian Minke whale catches have fluctuated between 503 animals in 1997 to 639 in 2005."

By saying this, I am neither for nor against whaling - I'm just making a point of the fact that you started off the thread by expressing your outrage over the fact that these countries have resumed the practice of whaling, and that your statement was flawed. Icelandic whalers were the ones breaking the IWC ban, whilst Norway have legally been whaling all along.

Just thought you'd like to know. Also, may I please ask what your actual objection is to whaling? Is it endangerment and biodiversity, the methods used, or hunting in general?

deanos

Rather than making another post why not update the first one you did http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=288355

jmarko

Still missing the point a bit here. Does Sony support whaling? Do the people that make Jarlsberg support whaling?

I say we boycott Marks and Spencer. They have nothing to do with whaling but I have it on good authority that some of the members of the Japanese embassy buy their lunchtime sandwiches there.

jmarko

[Deleted User]

Boycotting a country's products is fairly childish unless you can prove that the company you 'aren't' buying from has similar ethics.

Personally, I don't buy from IBM due to their participation in the Nazi Holocaust (they designed and built the machines used to produce lists for taking away for camps) and their lack of compensation and acceptance of the issue.

Anyhoo, i doubt you'll find a country with a clean ethical record on everything... you might as well just boycott companies, not nations

tr3mor

ringo_24601 wrote:

Boycotting a country's products is fairly childish unless you can prove that the company you 'aren't' buying from has similar ethics.

Personally, I don't buy from IBM due to their participation in the Nazi Holocaust (they designed and built the machines used to produce lists for taking away for camps) and their lack of compensation and acceptance of the issue.

Anyhoo, i doubt you'll find a country with a clean ethical record on everything... you might as well just boycott companies, not nations

Well said. Don't expect her to listen to you though, this is the second thread she's started on the same topic!

snaffler

I am with you OP Any kind of abuse in the name of profit is sick and barbaric.
Boycotting the country never works as enough people don’t do it to make effective.
The only way to stop an actual trade is to hit it where it hurts in its finances. I have been involved in various things regarding Environmental and Animal Welfare campaigns for over 20 years and this is the most successful method.

As for Sony well the way things are going I expect in 30 years time a load of today’s teens will be taking them to court claiming the playstation has made them obese, given them RSI, furred arteries, mood swings, piles and bad vision, and social skill disorders :rotfl:

LizEstelle

tr3mor wrote:

Well said. Don't expect her to listen to you though, this is the second thread she's started on the same topic!

All I have asked people to do is CONSIDER using this method, which they can do while going about their everyday lives and business, rather than another.

If there was a Norwegian or Japanese whalemeat shop at the corner of my street, I would boycott it.

Since, much to my astonishment, there isn't one, I'll apply my action to goods from these countries as a whole. Their governments have sanctioned this senseless slaughter.

I shan't be writing endless, futile, letters which just end up in the Icelandic ambassador's bin. I shan't be joining disregarded and irrelevant fringe groups to make extravagant but equally futile protests. In the world of capitalism which we all seem to be worshipping, only one thing appears to count - the wallet...

.. . and that's where I intend to apply my 'protest', if only in a miniscule way. Perhaps it would be less miniscule if others did likewise, but that's their choice and I don't apply sarcasm and unpleasantness to them in the same way which it is being applied to me.

My next car will NOT be Japanese.

jmarko

LizEstelle wrote:

If there was a Norwegian or Japanese whalemeat shop at the corner of my street, I would boycott it.

Since, much to my astonishment, there isn't one, I'll apply my action to goods from these countries as a whole. Their governments have sanctioned this senseless slaughter.

Same as yours has all over the world. You don't seem to be worried about that though.

The way I look at it, your insistence on having a go at innocent people who probably don't support whaling anyway is wrong. So, to balance things up, I am going to boycott anything that I find from Evesham on the grounds that those people live near you and so are also wrong.

LizEstelle wrote:

My next car will NOT be Japanese.

Personally, I don't have a car as I think they're environmentally unsound. I've done fine without one for 35 years and I don't intend ruining the planet just yet.

BOYCOTT EVESHAM - BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! :rotfl:

jmarko

Seakay

How do you know that the OP is not concerned about UK actions that result in deaths? What right have you to assume that the OP is not taking action to protest them?
A suggestion for an action on an ethical issue should not be an invitation for random abuse, or for the implied suggestion that there is no justification for taking action on one issue if no action is taken (or stated to be being taken) in regard to a multitude of other issues.