Comments by "Roy Sinar" (@roysinar8238) on "Motherboard" channel.

  1. If it was for food I would suggest there was a lot more weight to the killing of the whales, but its not. The meat and blubber are toxic and as such there are strict medical guidelines to how much anyone should eat per day. It is no longer an essential part of the islanders anymore, it is a nice to have for a small number of the population. There is new evidence to suggest that pilot whale populations are genetically diverse in the thousands. Therefore it would make the grind a very serious risk to a genetic population. It may well be that the grind will cease once the genetic evidence is finalised as it would certainly be unsustainable at that point. I do not believe you can force a population to give something up, but what you can do is keep pointing out the elephant in the room until such a time as the population sees that it is the right thing to do to stop. As the whales killed are migratory, and not actually from the local populations, it is something we can all have a say on. We share the oceans and the creatures within them as they know no borders.
    10
  2. +Jarred Frost Or maybe they just care about the barbaric slaughter of whales. I mean it is a possibility right?
    7
  3. +Mizz Tiger good, do point out where I have demonised anyone. I am likely to get further by not using a confrontational attitude with those who are willing to exchange good information. Your approach will usually lead to a negative experience.
    5
  4. +Nina Nyggju why does NAMMCO describe a population as being in the low thousands? Why do they say that they are not sure about numbers. These islanders could be destroying a genetically different population each year. So I agree their scientific studies (well actually they rely on others for this) should be taken into account and this killing stopped until the populations are understood.
    4
  5. +DRajtify the Faroes has zero poverty and has one of the highest standards of living in Europe. They do not need this meat to live, that is rubbish. They survive perfectly well without whale meat or blubber and with only a small percentage actually eating it, how can anyone make such a claim as yours. Oddly Sea Shepherd fight ocean pollution worldwide and do ocean cleanup projects. This is what makes this whole thing so odd. The Faroese can't really eat the whales as they are too toxic due to oceanic pollution, yet those opposed to them killing the whales are responsible for a big drive to clean up the oceans and reduce pollution in the oceans. theoretically the Faroes should be supporting Sea Shepherd globally while they in turn want to stop this tradition.
    3
  6. +D. M. Bell 0.1%, an interesting figure. Where exactly did you get that?
    3
  7. +The Demogorgon at 3.5g of meat a day (for an adult male) why kill them for food? You are a hunter, would you go out hunting for something you could hardly eat? Longevity is no excuse for carrying on something obsolete. I'm not telling anyone not to do anything. I am pointing out the obvious inaccuracies in the claims and arguments supporting the grind. It is not about food, this is about tradition. The islanders should be honest about it rather than fabricate justifications.
    3
  8. +Zombehnation1001 I've been watching your comments and wondering when you would be calling on me. At least you thought a bit first, although none of your comments so far show any depth of research. "most people don't adhere to 3.5g a day". Do you have anything to support this as most of those who are Faroese who comment and I have asked claim to either not eat whale or do so infrequently in order to have a proper meal without exceeding the guidelines. It's not their bodies I am overly concerned about either. If the entire islands were populated with adult males (whom the 3.5g limit is for) then the amount of whales required to supply that demand would be approximately 130 a year. So why kill around 5 times that (approx 650 not 800 on average)? Year on year? That massive overkill would suggest that the grind is about tradition and sport more than it is about food and sustainability. No one knows the population numbers of pilot whales and recent scientific evidence suggests that genetically different populations may be in the low (single digit) thousands. So yes 800 (or more accurately around 650) is a significant number from that population. Neither you, nor the rest of the world knows the population figures for pilot whales, therefore claiming they are "Non-threatened" is no less absurd than claiming the grind is sustainable. "pilot whales that aren't actively sought out". Really, then why is there a law that means that you have to report any sighting so it can be used to determine if there can be a grind? Seems like it is pretty active in that people look out for them and that you have to report a sighting. Those in boats have to go out and actively trick the whales in to shore. I will agree there are no reported cases where boats are actively seeking the whales, but then as a largely seafaring nation I would expect there are enough boats out there. You hit on the other point, these whales are migratory in the main. So they are heading to other areas of ocean controlled by other nations. Attacking such a migration would be badly received in pretty much most cases elsewhere, so why should this be different?
    3
  9. +Nina Nyggju Did you read the article I linked. The new genetic research would suggest that population numbers are in the low thousands from the point of view of genetic differentiation. In that case taking so many whales would now be unsustainable. These are those same scientists.
    3
  10. Just adding up how many have been seen and making an estimation based on those figures isnt very scientific. If the website was working we could share the section where they admit it is just an estimate. Since they started checking the genetic differences, that is scientific.
    3
  11. +Mizz Tiger I believe those articles just highlight how much stress the oceans and ocean life are under. I don't consider those to be , in your favourite word, "bashing" anyone. They highlight the effect of airborne pollution more than  heavy metal pollution.
    3
  12. +Mizz Tiger I would place it on the "wider reading" list. It is relevant in that we have discussed relative pollution in the oceans. It is relevant to the pilot whale as they will move along with their food supply. Cold water fish stocks are starting to be seen to be more abundant further north. There is a general concern this may be due to rising ocean temperatures. Therefore it could be seen as relevant to the abundance and localisation of pilot whales. It isn't, however, directly relevant to the grind or the video. Therefore why would you accuse +info145 of "bashing" anyone by posting them? Why would you accuse me of demonising the islanders by pointing this out? It's all very confrontational in tone. Bash, to criticize severely; demonise, portray as wicked and threatening.
    3
  13. Mizz Tiger true or not, the post in question did not "bash" anyone or indeed neither did I demonise anyone. To be honest, most of what you level at info145, I could and have levelled at you in the course of our many exchanges. I am sure you would say the same but I would challenge you to prove it and you know it.
    3
  14. +Mizz Tiger I see so your response was not specifically to that single comment so much as to all of info145s comments. Sorry you didn't make that clear. Now onto you accusing me of demonising the islanders or was directed at info145 despite the comment being directed toward me? Now I think everyone has had enough of the population claim you keep using (as well as other grind supporters). 0.001% or 0.1% of what exactly. the last NAMMCO survey (2007) puts the abundance around the Faroe Islands at an estimated 128,093, although the figure has a 95% certainty of being between 75,682 and 216,802. So the 0.1% could be either 7568 whales or 21680 whales. Well that must be wrong as in 2007, which is when the survey took place, 633 whales were killed in 10 drives. For it to have been 0.001% it would have needed to be between 75 or 216 whales. So on the year of the survey it is between 0.008% or 0.003%. The problem here is that the survey in 2007 was an estimate based on sightings and so none of these figures are facts as they can be seen to be disputable. NAMMCO also states that to maintain a grind of 678 whales a year the population would need to be between 50,000 to 80,000 (a reproductive rate of between 0.01 and 0.008%). That is around the lowest figure for 95% certainty. NAMMCO also go on to say "The apparent reduction of pilot whale abundance in the NASS index areas, which includes the hunting area around the Faroes, as well as the level of the catch in West Greenland compared to the population abundance available, should however be of concern". It is not as much a fact as you promote and not as sustainable or scientifically based as you make out. Like it or not, you have so far failed to acknowledge the genetic research which has suggested (see how I avoid the word "fact", because it isn't yet) distinct genetically diverse populations could be in the low thousands. While we await the latest population figures to be released by NAMMCO, it would be misleading to keep using figures from almost 10 years ago to base a claim about the current figures, especially using words like "fact" and "scientifically". The figures from 2007 just about make the grind sustainable if they are correct. Unfortunately they are the only figures available due to lack of surveys and knowledge of this species of whale.
    3
  15. Mizz Tiger they are done using statistical analysis which is mathmatical and still an estimate. I'm not sure scientifical is a word. It wasn't a counter argument but just pointing out where your claim was inaccurate. You used inaccurate numbers and glossed over the whole estimate factor by claiming facts that are not facts and things to be scientifically proven even though they were wrong. What I did do is give you the actual estimates and associated facts. I think that is a bit better and altogether more scientific and less misleading.
    3
  16. Mizz Tiger and were you accusing me of demonising or info145?
    3
  17. Mizz Tiger I didn't say they were not useful. My point was that they were estimations with a fairly wide degree of confidence. Using them to prove sustainability of the grind, you have used incorrect figures and stated something as fact when it isn't. What you should be saying is, as far as estimates allow, the population figures from 2007 generally support that the grind was sustainable then. Just. You and the other grind supporters do yourselves and your arguments no favours by relying on the 14 point script. Those only work if people don't check them for accuracy.
    3
  18. +Mizz Tiger there is nothing wrong with their credibility. They have some good stuff on their website and I have used it myself so why would I undermine it. What I have done it highlighted where they are honest about their figures being incomplete and estimated. I have then pointed out how that relates to what you were claiming/saying. This in turn takes away a lot of the certainty with which you keep making those claims. I have not disputed that the grind is likely to be sustainable, I have cast doubt on it being as sustainable as you claim. I have not disputed any of NAMMCO's figures or data, I have highlighted what it actually means. All in all, unless you wish to dispute any of the figures or points I have used or made, you are just sabre rattling to try and conjour some sort of confrontation.
    3
  19. Mizz Tiger since when did you become worried about facts. Or any grind supporter for that matter.
    3
  20. I would love a glass of what you are drinking. You need to read more on the subject. Especially if you think it's about food and even more so if you believe Mizz Tiger uses statistics or logic. Why should anyone "walk away" from pointing out the obvious?
    3
  21. There is evidence out their to support Marcelle's suggestion: http://www.dagens.dk/krimi/p%C3%A6dofili-tre-gange-flere-b%C3%B8rn-misbruges-p%C3%A5-f%C3%A6r%C3%B8erne-end-i-danmark Not that it makes a massive impact on the rest of the evidence against the grind. It may however have some justification for suggesting that the tradition should be replaced.
    3
  22. +Demvry Lee I have no issue with the Faroese. As far as I can tell they are OK. But if the whales are so toxic that they can only eat small amounts safely then why hunt it. The lady in the video said as much (Faroese lady). They have a massive industrial fishing fleet, fish farming and enough sheep for it to be a fairly regular source of food. They have plenty of supermarkets and even a Burger King, so why waste time killing a lot of whales when you are not able to eat them? So taking away the false idea of it being for food, what other reason would you suggest might justify the scale of killing?
    3
  23. 真田優 So what have I said that is racist? Whaling is no more Japanese culture than it is that of a European culture. I'm not vastly interested in Japanese whaling on this thread. When I want to comment on it I will find a thread on Japanese whaling.What lies have I said? What racial discrimination have I uttered? Prove you are not just hot air and rubbish and challenge me on something rather than spewing your message of hate.
    3
  24. +真田優 oh no more insults. How will I cope? I bet you are the life and soul of parties, wandering round yelling insults. If you has some facts or knowledge you would be dangerous.
    3
  25. +Nina Nyggju do you have the figures for the population there? How many whales constitute 0.1 to 0.001%. Where did you get the information on the reproductive rate of the pilot whale in the North East Atlantic? Surely without those how can you say it is sustainable? What is destroying the world is ignorants with wild claims thinking that people need them to use their voice to spread those wild claims. How can you be reliant on a food stuff when you can only eat 3.5g a day.
    2
  26. +Abella Seksa really I wasn't aware all vegans were like that. I wasn't even aware I was a vegan. Generically blaming a group of people for something they are not, as a group, responsible for while defending (albeit badly) a group for something they are doing is a touch hypocritical.
    2
  27. +Mizz Tiger yeah the main reason for the development of the human race is terrible compared to eating toxic wild meat. You just don't erm, what's the next bit, oh yeah, get it.
    2
  28. +Abella Seksa Can you put up a link as to where you get your figures from? We went through this before and these figures are wrong.
    2
  29. Ade Larsen maybe you can enlighten everyone what acts of terrorism have been committed and by whom.
    2
  30. +Ade Larsen ahhh bless. ;)
    2
  31. +真田優 whaling is no more a Japanese culture than it is most European countries culture. The difference here is that the Faroese don't happen to be breaking international laws with the grind. There is nothing in the above video that constitutes terrorism from either side. Considering the general depth of feeling, both sides behave quite well to each other. There is certainly no racism in the case of the grind and those opposed to it. I can't say I know what happens in Japan but then that is not what this thread is about.
    2
  32. +真田優 well the international courts agree with me not you. Taking heavy fuel oil into the southern ocean is against international war. And you are an idiot and an imbecile. :)
    2
  33. 真田優 you should try facts. Modern knowledge, this from someone suggesting chasing whales around is OK. How modern your ideas are. How moral, hacking away at intelligent creatures. You tell me what human rights I have advocated ignoring? Think you can manage that?
    2
  34. +真田優 if they were compliant why did they end up with a ruling against them? Compliant now, maybe despite saying they will ignore the ruling and go whaling again. Compliant then, no they were not. You lie by calling me a terrorist. Do I worry, nah I just laugh because it is just rubbish.
    2
  35. +Jóhann Heðinsson at 3.5g a day for adult men, I would just suggest a bit more of whatever they normally eat. It's not as if there is a poverty problem. Just because they use an outboard motor does not make it any less a tradition. I wasn't aware they used spears before.
    2
  36. Jóhann Heðinsson NAMMCO does not state any numbers but does offer an estimate. If you check carefully they say that there is not enough data to make any accurate estimations. I haven't checked the IWC because I don't need to. Those organisations, like NAMMCO, which have been set up to try and support whaling and are funded by whaling nations have enough for me to question the numbers. They also go on to talk about the genetic diversity making a distinct population in the low thousands. At no point do they suggest that the grind is sustainable, although they do say it is probably sustainable, therefore contradicting themselves. They sure don't need my help. On the video you can hear the man talking about how little is safe to eat and he is pro whaling. The figures from the scientists do suggest that whale intake is down since the guidelines and women have mostly stopped eating it. So realistically the number of whales required a year, for a normal population (not all men as I used before to try and bias my figures towards the pro-whaling group), would be around 60-65 whales. Are you really suggesting that each year they have to kill 10 times that amount to preserve it? On average a whale gives about 0.5 tonnes of meat and blubber. Where the hell are they storing 295 tonnes of whale meat each year? Do they keep nipping down to IKEA for some more cupboards? So come the next year they have 295 tonnes of whale preserved and so they kill another load and now they have 590 tonnes of preserved whale. See how your figures and arguments are nothing but fluff? I don't think you are grasping what I have been saying and maybe English isn't your first language. Let me know if there is anything you might need me to simplify.
    2
  37.  @youwished8806  no they don't. Go check it, all there are facts and figures in the various posts around this ridiculous circus of a thread. No one wants this thread restarting. Regardless of the futile nature of the Grind and the general stupidity of poisoning themselves to prove a point, the only way to actually stop this insane practice is to ignore it. These people are stubborn beyond reason and as such will happily poison themselves rather than submit to outside interference telling them to stop doing it. Stop interfering and they start to follow reason on their own terms. Anyway, I'll not be responding to this thread anymore as it is as pointless as trying to paint the sky. You can't force someone to listen to the truth and accept it.
    2
  38. +avion ellivi rofl, you said "academic facts". You might want to read what +mack man said in his comments as he is fairly much spot on about the cattle.
    2
  39. +Wolf 16 there are many alternatives available to the islanders. In fact the last scientific survey would indicate the majority of them never eat whale at all. The medical advice is not to eat more than a small amount of whale at any time and not at all for pregnant women. Eating it is far worse than eating farm reared meat or indeed the fish that they farm on an industrial scale. No one wants to be told what to do and this certainly applies in this case, but what they are doing by killing these whales is perpetuating a tradition that is out-dated and no longer required. Other cultures have had traditions that have been dropped due to them being out-dated and obsolete (or just impractical). Generally they are carried on in another form that is more acceptable to all.  After all slavery was considered traditional for many years.
    2
  40. +Nina Nyggju red. Read is something you do with a book. I am sure the whales would rather keep it in them.
    2
  41. +Abella Seksa And your country? What about them. Gun slinging loonies hell bent on killing yourselves? Waving the bible and not living by it. "Seems like your country is filled up by money hungry, mass murdering devil worshippers" you must be looking in the mirror.
    2
  42. +TheAngryFinnishPerson An interesting one this. 1 yes true sort of. 2 well they have a right to express their opinion. 3 I am not sure how hostile the Sea Shepherd crews have been. The video doesn't show any hostile acts by the Sea Shepherd land team. The only hostility is shown by the Faroese towards the Sea Shepherd crew. So does 1, 2 or 3 make the reason for the international spotlight unjustified? No. They don't need to kill these whales just as the Spanish do not need to kill the bulls (and they get plenty of grief for that). The Faroes do rely on the EU in a number of areas and are coming to realise that. The laws they have brought in to limit and criminalise anyone not joining the grind have backfired by causing cruise firms to remove them from their stops. Who would want their entire crew made into criminals should they see a whale (which most consider a great thing) and not report it. I think the morons abound on both sides.
    2
  43. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen especially if it is only in the name of tradition. Kill enough, if they have to, but really, this many. Ridiculous and nothing short of that. Maybe they should go as a rabble to their Burger King and assault the drive through. They could share the fries out among those present.
    2
  44. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen I wouldn't rush you have a lot to go through there and I got loads more to support it.
    2
  45. Eivind Lómstein Petersen another grind supporter who can't read. The figures are there. By all means dispute them. But to ignore them shows a certain lack of credibility.
    2
  46. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen not quite. Have another crack and see how you get on.
    2
  47. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen did you not follow the links in my last comment and read the various scientific papers? The numbers of population, are you disputing those? The number of whales caught in the year I used, are you disputing those? Do you dispute the medical advice and the scientific evidence in the link provided? I take it you dispute the Faroese Medical advisers document which includes the reference to the survey for how many people on the islands eat the meat? It is all there in black and white. Giving me your guess at how many people you think eat it is hardly a scientific survey. Islanders in the film actually describe the whale as no longer being a food source. At the moment you seem to refute my figures on the basis that more whale is eaten than my figures support. That is fine if you have something other than your word to back it up. It would suit my argument to say that no meat is eaten and the islanders sacrifice babies while slaughtering whales in the millions. Obviously that is total fabrication but without evidence it is just me saying it (and as a point I wouldn't as I have not tried to denigrate the islanders). So far I have given a reasonable amount of evidence to support my comments and opinions. You have questioned my figures and evidence. All you have given to back up your opinion that I am wrong, is an unsupported version of your word. Which incidentally happens to suit your argument. Some more recent scientific evidence or government based figures would really help if you have some. Otherwise it is your word against my evidence. I know which one looks more believable.
    2
  48. Mizz Tiger I agree we should not jump to conclusions about population numbers. They have only just started to use science to determine the population. The figures currently used are vastly out of date and are fairly open to question as they are purely based on sightings. Hopefully the new figures will reflect the science and a slightly more accurate count. Before those are published, we are wasting our time if we make any kind of claims based on the old numbers.
    2
  49. +Mizz Tiger I get by thanks.
    2
  50. +The Dippin American I have no issues with people hunting for food. I'm going to guess you use a rifle and shoot a small number of animals. What do you hunt mainly. Do you eat it?
    2