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

  1. asbjørn poulsen I don't try to make anybody look stupid. Some people just do that themselves. Answer some of the points I've raised rather than dodging them. This constant talking rubbish to avoid the obvious doesn't fool anyone.
    1
  2. asbjørn poulsen not exactly doing well answering the points I have repeatedly made is it. Would you like me to reiterate them for you or do you prefer this ridiculous attempt to somehow make out that I am Sea Shepherd supporter. When have I lied? I have no need to. Come now answer some points.
    1
  3. asbjørn poulsen wrong again. Have another go. Let's start with quantity. 127 whales would supply every Faroese with enough meat and blubber for a year (given the recommended amounts) so why kill more. Tell me where that comes from anyone else, go on have a go.
    1
  4. asbjørn poulsen not really answering again. Why not?
    1
  5. asbjørn poulsen would you like to try a different question? You seem to be having trouble with the last one.
    1
  6. asbjørn poulsen still struggling to find an answer. If you can't answer the question then say so and we can move on.
    1
  7. asbjørn poulsen I think we can take it that you don't want to answer that question. It does make a mockery of all the "subsistence" arguments. Also seems to remove a certain amount of the "environmentally sympathetic" credibility.
    1
  8. asbjørn poulsen and still no answer. Why not be open and honest about why you do it and stop pretending.
    1
  9. asbjørn poulsen then answer the question.
    1
  10. asbjørn poulsen so on average 127 whales would supply every Faroese with enough meat and blubber for a year (given the recommended amounts) so why kill more.
    1
  11. asbjørn poulsen see, I knew you would say that. Over 6 times more than you need and that is if everyone on the Faroes is an adult man. You are telling me that you eat 6 times the recommended amount for an adult male on a daily basis even the women and children. Pull the other one. Even in the video they acknowledge the limits. Explain that then. Oh yeah we sometimes eat a bit more. And don't regale me with curing meat. We are talking year after year of more than you need. One barren year does not alter the facts.
    1
  12. asbjørn poulsen and I did the maths which is why I know your explanation is rubbish. Don't forget you guys publish all the figures.
    1
  13. On average each whale gives around 0.5 tonnes of meat and blubber (according to the logs for 2013 for example). Would you dispute that?
    1
  14. The general medical advice is that a maximum of 3.5g of pilot whale meat can be safely eaten per day for an adult male of 70KG+. Would you dispute that?
    1
  15. You have already correctly stated that the population of the Faroes is approximately 50,000. if all 50,000 people are adults of 70KG they would need 170KG of pilot whale meat a day to be eating the maximum allowed. That equates to 63875KG of whale meat per year. That is 63.875 tonnes of meat per year to feed 50000 adults. As the 50,000 are not all adults or 70KG+ we can reasonably say the actual amount required would be considerably less than 63 tonnes, potentially half of that amount. Would you dispute those figures?
    1
  16. Therefore, unless you wish to dispute those figures, you would only need catch between 127 and 128 whales each year to cover the amount required even if all 50,000 people were 70KG adults (which they are not, approximately 21% are children). So even allowing for some adults eating way more than recommended, catching approximately 800 per year (your figures) is a massive over catch to supply subsistence requirements.
    1
  17. That is enough for 50,000 adults to each have their maximum recommended amount of whale meat/blubber per day. Given that not all the 50,000 are adults and that not all of the adults in that population eat whale meat/blubber, 127 is probably more than a generous figure.
    1
  18. I'm saying that unless there is a massive amount of over eating compared to the medical guidelines then the figures suggest you are over hunting for what you need. Considering very few of those from the Faroes I have asked on here actually eat whale, there is no need to believe that generally (as per the video) most that do keep to the guidelines. How much whale do you eat per day?
    1
  19. According to one study 47 percent of the adult population don't eat whale at all. Which makes your stance on "we eat as much as we like" a bit absurd when the documentary we are commenting on shows advocates of the hunting talking about keeping to the guidelines. Are you suggesting a small number of the population (taking into account children) are somehow responsible for eating in excess of 53g of whale meat/blubber a day. Seriously? Around 14 times the recommended daily intake? And yet no one will say how much they eat a day. How much do you eat a day?
    1
  20. asbjørn poulsen it's 21,000. Don't forget the children. It's not difficult. You multiply the 3.5g by just over double. In this case just over 8g a day. Although I think you have missed the point here. You said it is 800 whales per year. I did that calculation earlier.
    1
  21. asbjørn poulsen and yeah it's a lot excessive.
    1
  22. Oh I must have forgotten to mention only 17% of that study said that they ate whale more than once a month.
    1
  23. +MICHAEL Papsong Burger King and their usual diet.
    1
  24. +Mike C I haven't said they can't eat it. I'm pointing out that they generally don't and therefore the reason they give for killing a load of animals is rubbish. And I'm not your "dude". You are rather angry over something that really doesn't effect you.
    1
  25. +avion ellivi toxic, migrating, and not sustainable. Can't eat it so why kill it? We have covered all this before so go on.
    1
  26. +avion ellivi organic, like the toxic chemicals in the meat. Free, unless you are a whale or value the genetic diversity in a population. Sustainable, now if only anyone knew how many there were then we could answer that one. That is why no one, other than the Faroese, say it's sustainable. Go ahead and supply some links to those who say it's sustainable.
    1
  27. +avion ellivi having trouble finding a link again? Shame really because for a minute you looked like you knew what you were talking about. Then you lied about me being a Sea Shepherd supporter. Maybe you should read some of the links I gave you last time. At least my opinions have some credible external sources to back them up.
    1
  28. +avion ellivi so you haven't found anything to support your views. At least this exchange was short.
    1
  29. +avion ellivi talking of whining and not having any argument. How are you doing on finding anything substantial to back your position. Want me to look for you?
    1
  30. +avion ellivi rofl. I got a straw here if you want ☺
    1
  31. +Otta Otta I see the Faroese whaling website has undergone a big change. I notice that some of the mad claims have been removed. At least their media circus isn't floating. Great propaganda though even though they still go on about it being sustainable.
    1
  32. +Nina Nyggju got a link to that New York Times article? I must have missed that one.
    1
  33. +Mizz Tiger and have supermarkets and a Burger king and stuff.
    1
  34. +Mizz Tiger edible vs. none edible. I wonder which one you would pick?
    1
  35. +Mizz Tiger it's always black and white with you guys. It is either in a cage and tortured all its life or its free and a pilot whale. What do they eat that isn't whale. It can be local, sheep, birds and fish. I am guessing most of those are organic or close. I doubt they torture those all their lives. The fishing fleets do deplete the ocean but not massively (thanks to EU quotas and yes that is EU and don't argue it as I can prove it is the case). Do those other sources of food destroy the ocean and nature? No they probably don't. The supermarkets on the islands will stock what people buy. So what do they stock? Is it mass produced food and products or is it organically farmed food and products? After all unlike the city dwellers, those on the islands are fairly much well off with little to no poverty. That is not because they can nibble a gram of whale here or there. I've lived on not much in a city and I tell you what, it is not fun. You don't want to eat cheap crap but you do what you have to in order to get by the best you can, stretching every coin and note. Now I wasn't quite below the poverty line but I was close. Even at that point I wouldn't trade you some frozen mass produced crap in a bag in order to eat free organic whale that might increase the risk of Parkinson's or lower my chances at sexual reproduction, especially when that might lead to a greater chance of autistic children. So before you and the legions of grind supporters bash one more poverty stricken or low wage person, by trying to compare mass production industrial farming to unnecessary mass whale killing, let us just iron something out. There is a drive to reduce the impact of farming throughout the world. Many governments (mine included) are constantly working to clean up water supplies and reduce the amount of fertilizer used (oddly GMO helps reduce the amount of fertilizer by creating bug resistant plants). Animal welfare is getting better all the time with tighter restrictions on living conditions and slaughterhouses. True, like the human population worldwide, there are places where humans are treated as badly as farm animals, you find horrendous conditions in farms and slaughterhouses and it is not a surprise. So why are most developed countries trying to improve their farming techniques and reduce the impact on the lives of animals? It is because we learn and evolve. We have learned that better farming practices are better for the animals and humans alike. We have dispensed with old ways of doing things or in some cases dropped new ways to use older less impacting ways. We can do all this and yet you compare it to an age old tradition that needlessly slaughters these whales which are not fit for consumption and then you compare it to modern farming. There is no comparison, modern farming is about stopping doing the stuff that no longer is fit for purpose and learning all the time. The grind is just doing the same thing as we always did regardless of it not being of any real benefit. They could stop tomorrow and be no worse off but they carry on regardless despite the warnings. At least most of the rest of the world is trying to do something other than finding poor excuses to deflect blame by pointing out what others do. Right now I live in a place with clean water and locally produced organic food. I am lucky I reckon but I would never look to judge those who do not have my choice or waste just because I can, especially in cruel and inhumane ways. Remind me again why you support the grind.
    1
  36. +Mizz Tiger That would explain why you never bothered to read any of the articles supplied to you previously that showed your arguments to be flawed. They do say ignorance is bliss.
    1
  37. +Mizz Tiger OK, a short one. What is your honest opinion on the subject of the grind. Given the exchanges we have had, and the information we have all learned from over that time, do you think it should stop or not? And Why?
    1
  38. Mizz Tiger I think that is more of an issue for both sides. Both have become entrenched in their position and it has turned both nasty and stupid. Hopefully NAMMCO will use the genetic data to step in and end this in a way that both parties can save face. They are both just like bickering children.
    1
  39. +AndyLeCandy I guess you and Aaron go to the same school then.
    1
  40. Interesting reading for you: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/23/national/new-sea-shepherd-vessel-targets-japan-whaling-fleet-spotting-harpoon-ship-behind-iceberg/#.WOZSqjvyvcs Not sure they are running away. And Japan lost in court as well. The case you reference is in US courts only, the Japanese lost in the International Court of Justice.
    1
  41. Not to mention that as a culture they were never a whaling nation.
    1
  42. I didn't suggest Japan paid anyone. You clearly are not reading my post. I stated a fact, you agreed, therefore I was right. You can't start arguing and quoting when no one else has disputed what you have said. I'll put it down to over-enthusiasm. Like most Grind supporters, you seem to find it difficult when no one argues with you. I really couldn't care who paid who what all those years ago. What I do know is Sea Shepherd have a shiny new ship, they certainly paid for that and more recently. However those naughty Japanese whalers did quite well this year, so even with the new ship, it is fair to say Sea Shepherd had limited success in hampering the mission this year. I am sure they will try again next year, I don't think they are going away. You see your problem here is one source says one thing and the other says another. I have no reason to believe your idle ramblings any more than you need to believe mine. I gave you a reference to suggest the Sea Shepherd were actively looking for the whaling fleet, you have spouted a load about legal cases that clearly appears to have been a waste of your time and effort as it doesn't help. It distracts, a very good and usual Grind supporter tactic.
    1
  43. I think you would find that the legality of bypassing an injunction by whatever means is only subject to the law of the country which passes that injunction. There is no confusion as no one is questioning what you have said. Again, what is your point? Unless that Japanese whaling ship was in an Australian harbour it puts some doubt on your claim around the Sea Shepherd ships "running away". At least we both agree the Japanese reached their quota or at least say they did. I, for one, have no reason to believe they didn't. Japan repeatedly claims to have a culture of whaling and often expresses this as its reason to pursue (actively with tax payers money) a return to commercial whaling. This despite there being a drop in whale meat consumption in Japan. Considering the amount of effort the Japanese government put into promoting the consumption of whale meat, this reduction in consumption will eventually drive an end to their whaling agenda. We were talking about Japan not the Faroes in this set of comments.
    1
  44. The Japanese have a history of coastal whaling (similar to the Faroes) yes, but not oceanic whaling which is the point they argue. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35397749 Whether someone hypes it up or not, it is no excuse for inaccuracy. Personally I believe anyone willing to sail the southern ocean pursuing an openly aggressive counterpart, has stones enough to be considered "brave". So we can settle part of the Japanese claim to whaling history and also the inaccuracy of Sea Shepherd running away.
    1
  45. I've accepted Japan has a coastal whaling history and have been more specific regarding oceanic whaling so what are you disputing? Are you suggesting that it is fine to kill more than you need in order to cook the odd traditional meal? Are you also saying that because one custom eats something dangerous to health, that it invalidates any argument against Japanese whaling? In this case the tradition is not popular and is declining in popularity generally. I'm having difficulty seeing your point here. I disputed the idea that Sea Shepherd ran away and also pointed out the pointless nature of referencing the injunction. You have conceded the point about Sea Shepherd and we have debated the injunction and it's relative impact. I believe we have covered this, now you are just rambling.
    1
  46. canucktunes why contradict yourself? We have discussed that it is bad for you, we have also touched on the differences between cetaceans and your logical idea would be wrong. As for tradition, many have changed when they become outdated and generally pointless. Often traditions change when they become unacceptable in the current society. Defending it badly just makes no sense. What do you think you might achieve? I'm unlikely to change my mind as you offer nothing new. Anyone else following the thread will not be able to distinguish your claims/points/reasoning from those who have already tried and failed to justify this tradition.
    1
  47. asbjørn poulsen I am not trying to change your mind. Nor am I trying to do anything to justify either your position or that of the protesters.
    1
  48. canucktunes you said it is logical to say all cetaceans are equally contaminated. You then went on to point out that some are less so than others. I think that constitutes a contradiction. And I am suggesting the risk should be considered against the validity of the continuation of a tradition. You are suggesting that continuation of tradition should outweigh the risks. At least if you are disagreeing with me you are. I couldn't care if you are disagreeing, that is up to you. Just don't falsify evidence and mislead and I'll stay quiet and not put you back in your box.
    1
  49. canucktunes an interesting if incorrect set of statements. At least I am honest enough to admit when I am wrong and the same for yourself. My point is still as valid as it was when you tried to deflect from it earlier in the thread and just now try to rubbish. Imperialist influencing through propaganda? Really? I don't mention my country or culture much. There is no need. I comment on the freely available evidence, mainly supplied by the Faroes or sympathetic sources about the subject of this video. I don't mention the Faroes in other posts I make about other subjects as they are not relevant in that context. You appear to be trying to attack the messenger rather than the message.
    1
  50. canucktunes I did. Those were your words not mine. Look at your previous posts. 😉
    1