Japanese sailor lost off whaling ship in Antarctic

Tuesday 06th January, 06:01 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 61 Total Comments Show All

OssanAmerica at 02:03 AM JST - 7th January

OssanAmerica: "It has nothing to do with anyone's position on whaling." That may be, but everyone knows if the guy weren't out whaling he'd >still be alive.

The sailor was an Oiler.He spent his entire time maintaining diesel engines below deck. He was doing about as much "whaling" as you and I did last week.
Disillusioned at 08:31 AM JST - 7th January

A tragic accident. At least the Japanese have not hinted the activists had anything to do with it.
Ninefingers at 09:12 AM JST - 7th January

It is a tragic accident. However, what they do isn't an accident.
pointofview at 09:43 AM JST - 7th January

Its a dangerous job and things like this are bound to happen. Its very unfortunate but coalminers, steelworkers, construction workers, builders, soldiers etc. die everyday and there is no media coverage.
cleo at 09:49 AM JST - 7th January

The sailor was an Oiler.He spent his entire time maintaining diesel engines below deck. He was doing about as much "whaling" as you and I did last week

You mean the only whaler on the boat is the bloke who actually shoots the harpoon? I don't think so. If the engines are not properly maintained the death ships cannot leave harbour. He was a vital part of the whaling process.
OssanAmerica at 11:13 PM JST - 8th January

You mean the only whaler on the boat is the bloke who actually shoots >the harpoon? I don't think so. If the engines are not properly >maintained the death ships cannot leave harbour. He was a vital part of >the whaling process.

That's nonsense in the real world. I think you're stretching to lay blame. Qualified and certified Marine Engineers in the commercial maritime industry work for whatever ships will employ them. Their jobs are working below decks with main and auxilliary engines, evaporators etc on a 24/7 basis and they have absolutely nothing to do with the other operations of the vessel, be it transporting oil and iron ore, containers, automobiles, or harvesting fish, squid, crabs, or even whales. The choice of jobs are based on employment contract terms as is the case in many other industries. What you are suggesting is tantamount to blaming a GM or Boeing assembly worker for the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq by extension.

This particular engineer may have been totally against whaling in principle for all we know but hell, he needed the paycheck.
cleo at 12:00 AM JST - 9th January

This particular engineer may have been totally against whaling in principle for all we know but hell, he needed the paycheck.

He may have been uncomfortable about it, but if he was totally against it he would not have been on that ship.

Well, hopefully now his family have got the insurance.
OssanAmerica at 09:19 AM JST - 9th January

cleo at 12:00 AM JST - 9th January He may have been uncomfortable about it, but if he was totally against >it he would not have been on that ship.

Earning a living, feeding one's family usually takes priority over debatable issues.
cleo at 09:46 AM JST - 9th January

If it was a debatable issue for him, he wasn't totally against it, was he?
OssanAmerica at 01:05 AM JST - 10th January

If it was a debatable issue for him, he wasn't totally against it, was >he?

Whaling is debatable issue in they eyes of the world and the IWC. If it were not, all whaling under any circumstances would be banned, period. Actions would be taken against nations which continue whaling and are not members of the IWC. The only people who are under the impression that whaling is "not" a debatable issue are hardliners which range from people who post on the internet as though the issue were absolute, to those like Watson and SS who take the law into their own hands and conduct acts of piracy and terrorism.
cleo at 01:37 AM JST - 10th January

Ossan, you're playing with words. Why not just admit that you misused the phrase totally against in principle but, instead of trying to place the views of the whole world on the shoulders of one dead man, who will now never be able to tell us what he was for or against, or to what degree he was for or against it?
OssanAmerica at 08:37 AM JST - 11th January

No Cleo, I am not "playing" with words at all. My original statement stands, we will never know what his personal beliefs were. You have not prove my statement to be incorrect in any way. However you have unilaterally "decided" upon the degree of his beliefs and conviction, if any at all. And as it is you who continues to harp on the absolute value of the word "totally", you are the one playing with words. Please give it a rest.
cleo at 12:55 PM JST - 11th January

it is you who continues to harp on the absolute value of the word "totally", you are the one playing with words.

Playing with words by stating that a word means what it means? You have a weird idea of what 'playing with words' means. Just admit that you exaggerated. 'Totally' means 'totally, absolutely, completely', not 'somewhat, but willing to be flexible in the face of financial pressure'.

No one who is totally opposed to whaling would accept a job on a whaling boat.
OssanAmerica at 02:55 AM JST - 13th January

The use of the term "Totally" in describing human behavior, unless one is decribing certain mental and behavioral disorders, does not mean ABSOLUTE TOTALITY to the exclusion of all other aspects of human life and activity. By your absurd definition, if he wasted time sleeping and eating, or placed any value on happiness, wealth, or the well being of his family then he wasn't TOTALLY against whaling . Give it a rest with your fixation. The man is dead and it's disgraceful for you to try and pass judgement on a person who obviously can't defend himself and an issue that can't be proven one way or the other.

"No one who is totally opposed to whaling would accept a job on a whaling boat."

Yes, that's your opinion. You must lead a pampered life never having to make hard decisions and sacrifices.
cleo at 09:50 AM JST - 13th January

By your absurd definition, if he wasted time sleeping and eating, or placed any value on happiness, wealth, or the well being of his family then he wasn't TOTALLY against whaling .

Rubbish. You're setting up strawmen and making a self-righteous fuss about shooting them down. Common sense tells us that a man who chooses to work on a whaling ship is not totally opposed to whaling just as an electrician who services an electric chair most probably isn't totally opposed to the death penalty, or someone who works in a vet's surgery most likely doesn't have an animal phobia. It isn't 'passing judgement', it's a simple observation.

You must lead a pampered life never having to make hard decisions

On the contrary, being totally opposed to something on principle (a term which you still seem not to understand) can necessitate its own hard decisions and sacrifices. I'm sure it's much easier to just go with the flow and not think about the morality of what you're doing.