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

  1. +Mizz Tiger no read my comment. 80,000 is 5000 more than 75,000 which is the bottom line for the 75,000 to 250,000 figure for the population. So if the population happened to be around 75k, which is possible, and the islanders take 678 whales (the estimated average used for the sustainability calculation by NAMMCO) the grind is unsustainable or close to unsustainable by the current population as calculated by conventional legacy population methods. Hope that clears that up for you.
    1
  2. +Mizz Tiger no its not. The only enforcement going on is daft questionable laws. What is ridiculous is constantly being unable to defend this tradition. Or is it a sport. Tricky one as we know it's not about the food. Do you think cheese rolling is a tradition or a sport?
    1
  3. +Mizz Tiger do be so good as to point out where I have demonised anyone. You accused me of being a Nazi. You can't argue on facts because you lose every time so you seek to demonise me for pointing out that the figures show the islanders kill a lot more whales than they eat. They are butchering their way through biologically diverse families of whales so a few of them can eat a bit from time to time. If their sheep were as toxic, would they slaughter them as per usual? If they always shopped in one supermarket and the meat their was so toxic, would they not go to another? Misplaced pride is stopping them and people like yourself admit that this no longer has to carry on. Meanwhile the animals that they supposedly care about, are being killed for close to nothing. I don't need to demonise anyone. I deal with the lies and misleading "facts". Maybe their pride should allow them to be honest and say "we do it because we like to".
    1
  4. +Terrence Vergauwen the hint is in the name "Sea Shepherd". Hundreds of conservation groups go out there to try and save the elephants but then the main problem is the amount of money offered by Chinese and Japanese clients for the tusks of the elephant and the horn of the Rhino. You offer enough money and those defending face a tide.
    1
  5. +Otta Otta to be fair they also let the Faroese people speak. Some of those don't even have a cute smile.
    1
  6. +avion ellivi really, go on then explain why they are deemed "Data Deficient" as to numbers? Who says they are classed as sustainable? Best documented on earth, but yet you can't say how many there are or have much information on their genetic makeup and social group system. So where was your quote from? You are making it up again.
    1
  7. +avion ellivi so are you suggesting NAMMCO are wrong then? If they get their figures from NGS and UICN get their figures from NAMMCO which figures are you disputing.
    1
  8. +avion ellivi you said that already. Which figures are you disputing. it looks like those of NAMMCO but it is difficult to say.
    1
  9. +Otta Otta but good luck with their fledgling oil industry. Oh and their industrial fishing fleet. Don't make me fetch the violin. Oh it must be so hard for them, I mean no poverty, massive subsidies from Denmark, their push to become an IT hub. But look at the wooden boats, they must be good honest people just eking out a living. Makes I laff.
    1
  10. +HORLA While you have your broad brush out, what is your opinion of the Sea Shepherd campaign to stop illegal deep sea fishing and their 10,000 mile chase of one of the worlds most wanted illegal fishing ships? What about their efforts to remove the ghost nets and their campaign to reduce the pollution in the worlds oceans? Go on, tell them to "fuck off" and stop doing those things. Go on. I know you want to.
    1
  11. +Mizz Tiger or not. Mmmm whale shavings. How many shavings per whale.
    1
  12. +Tony Dadon They have chased down illegal toothfish fishing vessels in the Antarctic and brought them to justice. They have removed miles and miles of illegal ghost nets left by poachers. More over they have enabled the court injunction by Australia against Japan which prevents them whaling in the southern ocean. I think it is fair to say they have made a difference. And they continue to. While not a supporter of all that they do I still do acknowledge that they are doing something.
    1
  13. It might. When I get time I might go look. The toothfish operation seemed quite ok to me and the ghost nets too. As I said before, I'm not a fan of all they do, but I do realise that some of the stuff they do is good work. I'm less interested in the general mud slinging that seems to surround Watson.
    1
  14. Their trade balance is very positive from their trade in fish, farmed and caught. Their income per head is rather good too. Their supermarkets are well stocked and they seem to be doing absolutely fine without nibbling on a bit of whale every now and then. It is a global problem and Sea Shepherd fight it globally as well as a number of other organisations. My ancestors butchered their way to the biggest empire the world has ever seen. Modern generations learned from that and realised it was wrong.
    1
  15. Actually I have not said it is the truth. I have said there is evidence out there to back up what Marcelle has said. I also didn't say it had anything to do with whaling. In another thread where Marcelle made the same suggestion and I posted the same evidence that does seem to back that up, I did suggest the number of people on the Faroes may actually skew the data and that the comment was "off thread" when it came to whaling. So your point is?
    1
  16. And your point?
    1
  17. Don't waste my time fishboy. Unless you got something remarkable, like your whole lot of you got together and came up with something vaguely good, don't waste my time.
    1
  18. If only you could eat all of it you would almost have a good argument. But you don't and you don't. I do wonder why you bother replying when you so far have managed to get no where. Other than "believe me I speak the truth because I am there" you do not present any useful arguments for the pointless killing.
    1
  19. +Nicholas skinner Sorry you were making a point? What exactly are you trying to say? The Faroese do not live off the land so much as the sea. They have many fish farms and an industrial fishing fleet, supermarkets and Burger King. So your point again?
    1
  20. +Nina Nyggju A grind kills an entire family group of pilot whales as they travel in family pods and the grind targets a pod. So how many chickens is a generation? Got the numbers for pilot whale populations? No? Thats a shame as it makes the rest of your comment pointless as it can't be true can it.
    1
  21. +avion ellivi Misleading are the constantly used figures the pro-grind supporters rely upon. The feeding of the masses has nothing to do with this as it hardly feeds anyone in regard to the toxic meat.
    1
  22. +avion ellivi That would be irresponsible journalism at best. Link the articles and I'll contact the journalist in each case as I would bet they always say "according to" or similar. I checked the New York Times and they seem to say nothing of the sort. Are you lying?
    1
  23. +avion ellivi Lets see shall we. You don't seem able to offer any links to back up your claims. So the New York Times don't mention the grind as being sustainable, I checked The Guardian and guess what, no mention other than a quote from a Faroese official. Because I cast doubt on your claims about all these news sources saying the grind is sustainable, you seem to think I am saying I am better informed than some of the world media (I wouldn't class all of your suggested sources as "best informed"). Maybe you are just lying and being misleading as per usual. I did find one good article for you though:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/slaughtered-whales-grieve-thames
    1
  24. avion ellivi if the real world is where you make stuff up and look to misinform and mislead, then I would rather be in my well informed and well referenced "bubble". It would appear my "bubble" is rather busy as it seems to be inhabited by the majority of people. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/21/scottish-town-cuts-twinned-link-to-faroe-islands-over-whale-killings  There is a whole Scottish town in there and a couple of German cruise lines. It's in the Guardian so it must be true. 
    1
  25. +avion ellivi having not read most of the material from Sea Shepherd I wouldn't know what they claim or say. Feel free to detail which links I have used that are from Sea Shepherd. I see you have dropped The Guardian now as I demonstrated you were lying about their insistence that the grind is sustainable. Would you like me to check the BBC for you? I have already checked the New York Times. Just like The Guardian they were impartial and quoted those involved rather than taking sides or performing their own research. Only a blind fanatic moron would insist on not checking their reference material to make sure it backs up their claims. You are making a habit of being wrong on this topic.
    1
  26. +avion ellivi here you go, the BBC do not say it is sustainable but again quote those from the islands giving their view it is sustainable. The second link is rather good as it isn't Sea Shepherd leading the condemnation, its the WHO. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35261244 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1111388 Looks like you arguing against the World Health Organisation amongst others. Now who would I believe? You, noted for inaccurate claims and repetition of a pro-whaling website, or the WHO, scientists from the island in question and the figures from NAMMCO and the islands themselves. Who needs Sea Shepherd for references?
    1
  27. +avion ellivi and who is they? Face it, you are wrong. None of the main stream media agree that the grind is sustainable. Who can blame them when there is not enough information for anyone, even NAMMCO (who are biased towards the Faroes), to say it is sustainable.
    1
  28. No they don't. Stop talking rubbish, unless of course you happen to have a link that proves otherwise. I checked the Guardian and the New York Times, nothing. You said "the BBC", checked them and nothing. No one but those from the Faroe Islands suggest it is sustainable. The figures would suggest otherwise. Oh and while writing this I checked National Geographic and they say nothing about it being sustainable. You can post a link to the article in Politiken. Go ahead, don't be shy.
    1
  29. avion ellivi if you happen to come up with anything that is actually linked to reality or fact, do let me know as it will be better than the fantasy you seem to keep going on about.
    1
  30. +avion ellivi Oh this document. Pity it is rubbish as you have already found out. Let me know when you win an argument with it.
    1
  31. avion ellivi *yawn* Sorry did I trip trap over your bridge? You follow American politics? I am afraid I don't have the time or the inclination, too busy not being ignorant enough to allow you to win an argument about needless whale slaughter. If only you had some sort of evidence to help you. Shame I'll not be sharing the stuff that might.
    1
  32. +avion ellivi 1) No it isn't. No one knows how many there are in any region let alone migrating through the Faroe waters. There is nothing to back up the reproductive rate. Your rate differs from other grind supporters as well. Might want to find a page and stick with it. 0.1% of the entire North Atlantic population, which is unknown. Also the Faroe catchment area does not cover the entire North Atlantic. This whole point (1) shows a determined effort to disguise the truth by using misleading claims. 2) One of my favourites. It depends on the idea of the grind being cruel. It then compares relative cruelty when killing animals for food. Firstly I would contend that the food element of that is wrong as very few people eat enough whale for it to be anything more than a delicacy. Secondly, very few hunts of wild animals include indiscriminate killing. There is no evidence to back up the authors claims regarding the amount of time to kill and She ignores the drive completely. She also ignores the waiting and dragging when estimating time to kill. Again, misleading and unsubstantiated. 3) Couldn't care and not an argument I have used so move on. There are the odd sweeping inaccurate statements, but mostly irrelevant. 4) Not a tradition? That is odd because the National Geographic and The Guardian think it is and have said as much. The author then goes on to suggest it is for food. If that were the case you would have been able to debate with me when I compared the numbers and the number of whales killed and the amount that can be eaten, don't add up. Small amounts of whale may be being eaten but nothing that justifies the amount killed. If we could only eat 3.5g of bacon or beef a day I would reckon we wouldn't be farming it, note the difference, farming, not hunting. The authors comparisons flit between the two in order to further mislead. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/24/protesters-film-slaughter-hundreds-whales-faroe-islands http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140911-faroe-island-pilot-whale-hunt-animals-ocean-science/ 5) Not of interest to me and not a concern I have raised. Move on. 6) The author actually makes an accurate point. it is not for others to decide what the Faroese eat or don't eat. Absolutely right. It is very different from farming animals for food, which others can and do. The author presents nothing to back up their insistence that modern farming is so bad and we should all be vegans. The understanding of the world outside of the Faroes appears lacking. The statements are sweeping and inaccurate and take no account of regional differences. You are always at a disadvantage in these discussions as the rest of the world can easily categorise the Faroese while those defending cannot do the same to the rest of the world. 7) 8) and 9) Pilot whales are reckoned to be as intelligent as the Bottlenose Dolphin (http://acsonline.org/fact-sheets/pilot-whale/). No evidence offered by the author other than opinion. Also this again moves into the whole farming against mass hunting debate. You simply cannot compare farming of animals to hunting wild animals. Pilot Whales are indeed social and intelligent, but with farmed animals killed on a generational basis, it is fair to say that they do not have such bonds. Maternal yes but nothing beyond that. It is not normal for farmers to kill their breeding stock or pregnant females, this is not so with the grind. NAMMCO has research that shows significant genetic diversity between pods of Pilot Whales, enough to declare them different populations and therefore killing off a pod could well be killing off a culture. 10) Not something that bothers me or anything I have looked much into. At least if they sold the meat they may actually justify killing the odd whale or two more, although not enough to justify the current levels of destruction. 11) Couldn't care much about this point. The author was unaware that ties with Scotland and cruise firms would be impacted by the negative press around the grind. The perception is changing. 12) The only point with real detail and less opinion. I would agree that the contamination along with the genetic details will cause the Faroese to stop whaling. After that, over time, I think the realisation that it was unnecessary will mean that should contamination die down, the whaling will stay stopped. So even the author of the document used to argue for the grind accepts that it will end and that eating whale meat and blubber is bad for you. As you forgot, I will add the link to this article: http://elinbrimheimheinesen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/10-arguments-against-pilot-whaling-and.html
    1
  33. +avion ellivi are you going to troll me now?
    1
  34. +Mizz Tiger I'm going to have fun putting these threads right. Now if cows and pigs were implicated in serious diseases due to contaminants, I am not sure anyone would be eating them. but because they are farmed and carefully reared, they are not, so fine to consume. If only those pilot whales were not packed with contaminants you might have a case.
    1
  35. +Mizz Tiger I am interested in your understanding of GMO feeds and what that might mean with regards to the animals that are fed with feed containing GM material. What are the "bad effects" GM might have on nature? Do you understand what GM means? I don't think industrialised farming creates methyl mercury. It may be responsible for a small amount of PCB contamination due to pesticides, so growing feed for the animals might have a small negative impact. It's nowhere near the "mainly" claim you make. They mainly come from industry and burning of fossil fuels. I do not "bash" the islanders as you claim. I point out that the contamination, which you agree is there, means that these whales are no longer a viable food source and that the islanders should really stop killing them for food as they are too toxic to be eaten in any large quantity. Life long torture? Not my meat. I can see mine and I happen to know the farmers. You are going to have to find a better excuse than preference for meat filled with toxins which is dangerous to eat over meat from animals raised by caring farmers who constantly strive for better welfare and better quality animals. You can't do that and torture them. At least they are bred to become food unlike these inedible whales who have a good life with their families until some islander starts killing them in front of each other, not so great then is it. Spare me the romance, my priorities are fine.
    1
  36. Lmao. Thanks I think I might be OK on this subject. I was more checking to see if you knew. I suspect maybe not. Your last point is closest to the truth, "what people fear they might". People fear the hype they read in the media, but we know better than that.
    1
  37. +Mizz Tiger that will be a "not".
    1
  38. +Fire 4 First part right, second part wrong. How many additional bananas or oranges would be needed for those few islanders who do eat whale to replace the 3.5g of it a day they are allowed to eat? If I offered you a free steak laced with toxins that have been linked with multiple diseases or suggested you buy another banana, which would you choose?
    1
  39. +Txema Novelo With you till the point of "ethics of the Faroe people". I mean don't get me wrong I understand their reaction to being the centre on international attention. You might want to actually research what it is they are doing and why. You want to be associated with supporting a tradition of killing whales regardless of not being able to eat them? You were doing well for a sentence or two.
    1
  40. +Mizz Tiger Pointing out the needless killing of these whales.
    1
  41. +avion ellivi I don't believe the medical advice in the Faroe Islands covers not eating Burger King. Can't think why that might be. Any ideas? Also I think you missed the point. Still not to worry. The relative scaremongering about fast food has little to nothing to do with the medical advice on the Faroe Islands regarding whale meat and blubber. Now if they had advice suggesting that fast food was toxic and a likely cause for numerous medical conditions, I would agree with you wholeheartedly, but there isn't so your point is?
    1
  42. +avion ellivi strange, wine doesn't feature in their scientific presentations. Is the wine high in methylmercury or PCBs? Is the water related to autism in children?
    1
  43. +avion ellivi I would agree that smoking is bad for anyone, personally I would rather it was banned in most cases. Alcohol in excess causes a number of issues. Anything in massive excess will kill you, especially if it falls from a great height. So your justification for mass killing more whales than are required so a few people can eat the toxic meat, which is heavily linked to major health issues, is that water can kill you so why not eat the toxic meat. Is your justification really that thin? By all means smoke and drink, but don't endanger the genetic diversity of an intelligent animal just because you want to damage the health of your children and yourself. This tradition is no longer needed and outdated, its time to replace it with something more fitting.
    1
  44. +avion ellivi and you sound like all the others. They didn't fare to we'll using the same arguments as you. By all means do post your evidence about the burger compared to the whale meat. Trying to make me out as a Nazi or similar will do you no good. I do like your words as I have no doubt even you know they are misleading. You have nothing to back them up with unless you happen to have some evidence those before you failed to produce. Get over it and start thinking of the best way to back down graciously. That's the best advice for grind advocates. They like the Internet, well welcome the the modern world.
    1
  45. ***** there is no need for hate on this, its more a matter of education. All you have said would be no different than those opposed to the abolition of slavery. When something is obviously wrong and creates unnecessary suffering to intelligent creatures, then I tend to take an interest. The only time I tend to get involved is when I see people spreading inaccurate information around the subject. I first heard about the grind when I was a teen, and I was angry then. I'm older now and have time to read around the subject extensively. I read both sides and inbetween and then make my opinions. You have not said anything so far that I didn't already know and understand.
    1
  46. +avion ellivi keep licking the mercury laden, immunodisruptive meat fella. Me and the various scientists disagree with you. I'll let everyone else decide who they think might be right.
    1
  47. +avion ellivi and some other person caused me to actually go look a bit more about this and I found the following: http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/unhealthy-things-lurking-in-your-burger/ http://www.shortlist.com/food-drink/is-this-burger-going-to-kill-you So a burger is 27 times less toxic to us than whale meat. And your organic pilot whale, strange how it is referenced by doctors as known to cause disease and issues when consumed by humans: http://chriskresser.com/the-truth-about-toxic-mercury-in-fish/ Maybe the islanders should stick to fish.
    1
  48. +avion ellivi oddly there is plenty of evidence around how bad pilot whale, or more to the point, the various toxins are for humans. There is very little research into how bad industrialised meat is for humans. The problem with this is that it is easy to track smaller groups of compounds than it is to deal with the many complex interactions of a varied diet. Unwittingly the islanders actually help identify the effects of those toxins by providing a stable population which offers a great control group. Anything other fallacies you need sorting?
    1
  49. +avion ellivi I never said anyone died as a direct result of eating whale. There is no evidence of anyone dying as a direct result of eating red meat. People die of diseases related to the consumption of these meats. Unless you happen to have some evidence you wish to share with me. I have yet to see or hear of a CoD of "Eating meat". But shortly when I have time I'll share plenty on Faroese scientists linking the eating of whales to a number of conditions.
    1
  50. +avion ellivi feel free to back up your claim about red meat with some sort of link or evidence. You will excuse me being sceptical when all I have to go on is your say so. So far you have not shown yourself to be a reliable source of information.
    1