Boycott JAPAN, ICELAND, NORWAY

maow425

LizEstelle wrote:

I shall not even dignify this appalling accusation of 'racism' with any comment. I am myself not British in origin. At no point did I make ANY racist comment and I defy you NOW to produce evidence of it.

Yes, it was detectable all along that a hidden agenda was driving your comments - and it has taken you how many days to admit to it publicly? This is a UK-based website and the inherent assumption is that posters are Uk-based citzens unless they openly declare an interest to the contrary - which you have SIGNALLY FAILED TO DO.

I have NEVER AT ANY TIME accused all Norwegians of supporting whaling. Kindly NOW produce evidence that I have done so.

Your statements, time and time again, have been in support of the argument that 'not all Norwegians support whaling... and that therefore we must of course rule completely out the possibility of applying sanctions against the country as a whole.'

Sorry, FOR THE FINAL TIME, this argument is spurious, does not merit consideration now, never has, and never will do. Not all white South Africans supported the apaartheid system - and yet I note that the Norwegian government was happy to participate in economic sanctions against that country, along with many of its citizens refusing to buy South African produce.

Your shrill, irrelevant and, we now have the admission, biased comments have now earned any further contributions from you a complete disregard on my part.

I hope that the 36 people (to date) who have sent me messages of support will have taken note of the last postings on this thread.

My opinion was that when you said a persons opinion would be devalued if they happen to be from a country about which you were complaining, you were being racist.

By making the assumption that because I am Norwegian I have a hidden agenda you have sunk even lower, and why is it assumed that I am not a UK-based citizen?

By the sounds of it, and I may be mistaken, that based on my nationality, I am pro-whaling, biased and against you from the get-go. Now if that last post of yours doesn't have some serious racist undertones, I must be wearing the same kind of blinkers as you.

You have posted about a highly contentious subject, for which I have neither given support or declared abhorrance. Your views have been pointed out to be flawed, and you obviously don't like it.

I have not said that you accuse or, have at any time accused, all Norwegians supporting whaling, and will therefore not produce the evidence you request. However, it has been pointed out that your boycott would also affect those Norwegians/Icelandic/Japanese who do not support whaling.

And may I ask why you have not admitted fault when it was pointed out to you that Norwegian whalers have been legally whaling all along? When your original post expressed your disgust over 'these countries having resumed the practice'. Iceland were the ones that broke the ban. Japan have been whaling for years under a scientific license, but as I have said before, Norway have hunted Minke whale for years - legally in the eyes of the IWC.

I did ask way back in the posts whether the recent newsfeed (I can find a link to the BBC's story about it) was what spurred you to take this action, but never received a response. But I believe in 2nd chances, so: Was it the recent newsfeed aboout the Icelandic whalers breaking the ban that brought forward the feelings of disgust and the need to take action?

LizEstelle

So, still waiting for some counter argument NOT based on points 1-4 in my last post.

If, from this point on, anyone uses these as a basis for continuing to argue against my case, I shall ignore them as being persons unable to accept basic logic.

Hereward

LizEstelle wrote:

So, are there any further comments on the situation which do not rely on:

1. Two wrongs make a right.

2. You're not permitted to take action against a country as a whole because not ALL of its people are doing bad things...or because people in other countries also do various bad things.

3. Oh dear, those arguments don't really work, do they? Ok, I'll deliberately cloud the issue by talking about how difficult it's going to be to avoid burning gas this winter.

4. Oh heavens, that argument doesn't really work, so I'll throw in slurs about 'racism'.

??????????????????????????

Umm, how do you carry out action against a piece of land (or sea) (that is a country)? I can understand taking action against the government or citizens (people and organisations) of a country, but not against the area they occupy.

I notice that you did not comment on my post about the issue of complaining to importers of fish products from Icelandic waters.

redux

LizEstelle wrote:

Yes, it was detectable all along that a hidden agenda was driving your comments - and it has taken you how many days to admit to it publicly? This is a UK-based website and the inherent assumption is that posters are Uk-based citzens unless they openly declare an interest to the contrary - which you have SIGNALLY FAILED TO DO.
...
Your shrill, irrelevant and, we now have the admission, biased comments have now earned any further contributions from you a complete disregard on my part.

The first paragraph is simply ridiculous, and the whole tenor yet again is personally abusive, and now discounting this person's remarks as driven by previously undisclosed bias.

There is nothing in the terms and conditions of use of this forum website that suggests people are obliged to give such personal details as this person did.


The standard of any discussion on this site should be better than this.

It is totally out of order to make these continuing false accusations about people's opinions, rhetorically imputing that they are actively condoning something when it is clear they are not. But, despite your repeated claims that you have not leapt to dismissive assumptions about people's beliefs, you are doing it over and over again.

You have done this to other posters on this thread, you have done it to people I said I met ten years ago, one of whom actually works in a related field and I discussed it at some length with her (oh, I suppose I have a previously undisclosed interest too, that you will now attack me for), even sending her a video of a Horizon programme a few years back.


Of course people support your principle, but very few of them will support a case built on venomous attacks on other people who, could you listen, you might very well find would actually also object to the practice, as we have all said, if they were also given a chance to qualify that their actual objection is to your simplistic blanket assumption of guilt against millions of people.

tr3mor

LizEstelle wrote:

I am a foreigner myself and at no time have I suggested that anyone's opinions are devalued because of country of origin... unless they HAPPEN to come from [Norway / Iceland / Japan].

Your comments above are no different whatsoever to saying

I am a foreigner myself and at no time have I suggested that anyone's opinions are devalued because of country of origin... unless they HAPPEN to be black / asian / chinese / american / british / whatever.

Therefore, even if you dispute it, you are being racist.

arkonite_babe

Thread Now Referred To Forum Team