Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

and one should not sit by and idly watch one's neighbor commit such acts.

Originally Posted by aklim

Are you willing to extend that courtesy to anyone and everyone who feels that way or is it to causes you agree with?

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

I would go with causes which are very nearly universally agreed upon.

Originally Posted by aklim

Many Lynch mobs, jihad supporters, militia group members have similar definitions. If we want to talk law and order, we can't simply take the law into our own hands because it is popular

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Whatever dude... You're babbling again on some sort of unrelated tangent...

It is your prerogative to hold the opinion that it's cool to slaughter dolphins and think that no one should do a damn thing about it.

Originally Posted by aklim

I understand your wanting to add confusion. Principles are very inconvenient at times when you don't like what is being done.

It is also your prerogative to not read what is written and spin it to say what you want. I never said it was cool to kill dolphins but I understand it makes a better case for you to be unable to read. I don't disagree with doing it via legal channels. I do disagree with being a vigilante. If you cannot understand that, go back and ask a teacher to help you understand it.

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Babble babble babble... just making noise again.

Please point out where I suggested or supported ANY particular method of curtailing their activities.
Your assumption that I am in favor of vigilante methods is wholly a figment of your imagination.

Please find someone else to create your fictional little disagreements with.

I find it humorous that a person who formed his approach to life from a second rate character in a spin-off from an old science fiction tv show bandies about words like 'principle'...

Originally Posted by aklim

Why do you assume I value your opinion of me? I gathered that from your offering of it.

Read what you wrote about standing idly by and what was written before that. Context.

I'll try finding a replacement for something I think of in lower esteem ASAP.

It isn't the only place I base opinions on but I assumed it was a common enough one that many can make reference to unless you prefer more obscure items. I do so hate to explain.

Originally Posted by MTI

I think experience has shown us that for some members, their sphere of concern only extends as far as their personal space.

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

The assumptions are all yours.
You will likely notice that I edited my post, but apparently not before you quoted it.
Nothing productive will come of this little tiff, and it only serves to distract from the OP. Apologies for my side of it.

On track. The dolphin harvest in Taiji every year is an abomination, and should, by all rights, be dealt with by the Japanese government.
Seeing as how they have turned a blind eye, then I am all in favor of exposing what goes on there to the world.
Enough public outcry will, hopefully, pressure the Japanese government into taking action.

Originally Posted by MTI

I think experience has shown us that for some members, their sphere of concern only extends as far as their personal space.

Originally Posted by davidmash

Unlikely. There has been quite a bit of pressure regarding their whaling and shark finning but they still do it. I do not even pretend to understand their culture. I don't understand why they feel it is OK to kill sentient beings like this wit out any remorse.

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't like it any more than you do but if you advocate firing a few torpedoes at the fishing boats, would you give someone who rams an inflatable boat into the USS Cole a pass since they no doubt find things we do disgusting? If we allow vigilante action because we think this one time, it is a good idea, how do you draw the line on that slippery slope? Who decides the next time? Who decides how far one can go? If you endorse harassment because you think this is a good cause, what happens when you don't? What happens today with the Sea Shepherd is liked by you. What about tomorrow when you don't like the reason for someone to harass you? If you support breaking a law to keep the "greater good", who decides whether this item is part of the greater good or not? It could become a huge mess when a militia decides what the greater good is and breaks and bends laws to get that good. As I said, allowing vigilantes besides on TV is going to get us on a slippery slope.