The Japanese Whalers are immoral and deserve the Sea Shepherds' actions.

>(This is self-defense. The Whalers are getting attacked and simply defending themselves) Ok then why do they result to such violent tactics. the sea shepherds use tactics that do not harm the whalers. If i came up to mug someone with nothing but fists the right thing to do would be to fight me off not neccisarily kill thats illegal self defense is different then unnecessary violence. >(Take into account this analogy: If an intruder comes into your home with a knife, you will obviously want to defend yourself. A weapon the homeowner may choose is a gun. A gun is clearly more powerful than a knife, but the action is just.)This analogy is void because knifes can cause harm to people the sea shepherds tactics do not which is why the act is unjust when they respond to that with flash grenades and violence that's something a frustrated kid does. >(If anything, the Sea Shepherds are acting immorally here.)no warrant or impact so thus this argument cannot be looked at. >(This contention is void. It is backed up in no way whatsoever.) ok well let me explain have you ever seen a whale massacre anything no. They are harmless to us yet we still kill them. Babies are harmless yet people consider it immoral if we kill babies. Thus the Whalers are immoral. >(Since when is acting within the law immoral? I applaud the whalers for acting legally and morally.) Ok while i admit that following the law is not immoral taking advantage of it is if i program a robot to kill someone then it is technically not "Homicide" which is defined a as man killing a man so thus taking advantage of a law is not moral I'm guessing that you are a democrat and or on welfare. >(Another unwarranted claim. >The Japanese use the whales for research and science. (1)) Ok so we see absolutely no evidence of the Whalers using the parts for science they kill the minimum amount allowed under the law and they process the whale from there. on the same ship to which the whales are transferred coincidence I think not. Cont 1 of my opponents case is flawed t the extreme. We eat beef and pork because we specifically raise those animals for htose purposes its called Domestication. We don't domesticate whales some species are already extinct this puts us on a slippery slope where will it stop when all species are extinct except us. Conts 2 and 3 are contradictory in cont 2 he says "Rights are created by humans not animals" then in cont 3 "Humans are essentially animals". Proving this you cannot look to cont 2 or 3. I'll refute to avoid dropping this argument. Ok 2 humans are simply evolved animals what is the distinct line between us and animals we both have self preservation systems in our bodies so humans are animals this was stated by my opponent in cont 3 so it is accepted as true now. cont 3 animals harm each other anyway. so do humans lets speed up that process.In different light we can see that this concept is not moral. cont 4 china is over populated lets lay waste to them. since humans are essentially animals. obivously this would not be tolerated so why exterminate a species on the brink of extinction cont 5 ok lets say i think killing people is fun fun is in the eye of the beholder and changes for everyone thus this cannot be looked to as morally acceptable OK to restate my first paragraph and elaborate this is how it links. We depend on the ocean when whales and sharks and fish are extinct we run out of food on water then we run out on land thus without this value we would all die. Just action is what started our country and population without it we descend into anarchy. This is why we set up laws. I refuted all points on my arguments so they still stand while my opponents arguments crumble. To restate it the whalers are too violent the shot someone in an attempt to kill while the sea shepherds do not even cause injury to begin with. the slaughter of innocence must stop in order to remain moral. Also the Con didnt provide a V o