The Hot Blog

I liked The Cove and found it beautifully shot. But I was a little disappointed - the film is just about as blatantly one-sided as any film you're likely to see from Michael Moore.

There is so much Japan-bashing in every minute of screentime, I actually found myself cringing at points - I can honestly see why this took so long to happen.

I lived (relatively) near Taiji for a couple of years and have visited the town - almost everyone in the Kansai region is aware of the annual dolphin cull, although it's viewed fairly negatively.

The whole bottom of the Kii peninsula is one of the most isolated areas in Japan. It takes longer to travel to Taiji from Osaka than it does to Tokyo, and it's less than half the distance. There's literally a people counter in the town office with the number of men, women and children in the town - and it's not going up. From the comfort of our homes the moral choice is easy, but when you're faced with the prospect of losing your job in a depressed economy with little chance to relocate or provide alternative businesses you can understand the temptation. Especially if you're being threatened by Yakuza from Gobo.

I'm not saying what they're doing is right, but for the fishermen involved it's not like being asked to cut salt out of your diet or take a pay cut. They're probably literally choosing whether to destroy the town where their families have lived for generations.

hey, i understand the need for 'balance', but when it comes to taiji, it's hard to come by.

(warning: impending rant, possibly toxic in nature like mercury. jeremy piven take note)

i haven't seen 'the cove' but as a long-time observer of the taiji "cull", which is widely publicised and scrutinised in this part of the world, the problem with the annual dolphin slaughter is that it is completely unnecessary and without merit, based on feigned ignorance and 'tradition', inexplicably cruel and brutal, and a scientifically proven health hazard.

the justification for culling the dolphins because they supposedly deprive the local fisherman of fisheries resources by eating all the fish is absurd and baseless; countries that manage their fisheries resources properly with a focus on conservation rather than relentless fishing in pursuit of profit at all costs have no problem supporting both huge populations of dolphins and a healthy, thriving fishing industry at the same time; i know because i live in one. the slaughter of dolphin populations is inexplicable, akin to putting a band-aid on cancer.

the japanese have an appalling record of overfishing and poor conservation in their own waters, with for example the widespread use of drift-netting, bottom trawling and longline fishing, all of which destroy fisheries ecosystems and cause serious depletion of fish stock. THIS is the culprit behind japan's dwindling fisheries, NOT the dolphins, which are a natural and necessary component of the biodiversity required to keep fish stocks healthy and species populations in balance.

in addition, japan pulls the same bullshit all over oceania and the world. every year japanese fishing vessels are caught illegally drift-netting and longline fishing in our waters, not to mention squid/bottom trawling and whaling (for the laughably phrased 'scientific research' purposes, when everybody knows whale meat is the unobtanium of the japanese seafood market, fetching outrageous $ on the open market. funny how all that 'scientific researched' whale meant ends being sold there for the big bucks)

further, the health risks of eating dolphin meat are well documented and not at all vague; selling dolphin meant for human consumption is at the very least irresponsible and should be criminal, as mercury poisoning in humans is an extremely serious condition and can cause irreparable neurological damage, esp. in children.

the slaughter at taiji is a complete travesty and a sorry indictment of japanese conservation practices and their poor record for the humane treatment of animals. i'm chuffed someone has shone the spotlight on this despicable act for international consumption; maybe japan will finally be forced to address not only the slaughter but their own rather backwards attitudes towards conservation. i'm not holding my breath tho, because it would require modifying practices to the detriment of the prevailing 'profit at all cost' paradigm of the japanese fishing industry.

(now, if only someone would make a compelling doc about how often the japanese have been caught red-handed bribing third-world country members of the IWC to vote to help them overturn the moratorium on commercial whaling so that they may line their own pockets with gold)

Leahnz, I'm not disagreeing with any of your points and the movie makes a very compelling case for what you just stated, including that very last point, which I'm sure will please you. But....

Every shot of a Japanese person in the movie, EVERY shot makes them look creepy and nefarious. Even the supposed "good guy" local councilmen of Tarji. And sorry, this is just wrong - there is ample discussion in the movie about how this slaughter is an extension of Japanese culture and imperialism...give me a break! The filmmakers just go too far, in my opinion, and it's borderline racist.

It's cinema and compelling cinema, at that. There is probably isn't a lot of room for balance on this issue and the footage they find makes that clear. But sorry, if there was a documentary made on the Valdez calamity and the filmmakers went this far on showing how such villains all Americans were, as a result, there would have been a lot of folks crying bullshit.

It's Japan, what do you expect. Science?

(I hope someone, Leah?, got that joke.)

Why do documentaries - and we discussed this the other day in regards to Jesus Camp - need to be unbiased? If they were documenting the Holocaust would you expect it to be even-handed?

I have no problem with docs being one sided - hey, sometimes that's just how the story falls out. However, I am rather bemused when Medallion Media says this "offers the opportunity for such a debate". A debate would require the presence of an alternate viewpoint, which you're unlikely to get from the fishermen.

Incidentally Leah, NZ doesn't have the greatest track record with fishery conservation either - orange roughy has been overfished considerably for decades with the estimate that the quotas were three times what they probably should have been, and paua is notoriously protected due to overconsumption. Even the Kaikoura and Cook Strait crayfish are getting smaller and smaller despite conservation efforts, and that's in a country with a population of 4million compared to Japan's 128million, in addition to the fact that Japan lacks the farmland to support the 70million sheep and 4.5million beef cattle that New Zealand has to provide alternative food sources.

Again, I'm not saying it's right, but its effect on the town's income would be the equivalent of going to Bluff and saying "Right, we're shutting down the oyster industry". You'd be looking at a virtual ghost town overnight.

DOLPHIN POWER.

Conservation may not be the winning argument, but dolphin meat being poisonous sure as shit is.

I'm no animal rights guy, and eat live sushi when I can...but not if I know it's friggin' toxic.

True, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

I work in consulting, and one of the things you have to do in that role is try and keep perspective. Everyone's heard horror stories about consultants who come in and recommend a headcount chop, and hundreds or even thousands of people lose their jobs. That's what tends to happen when you forget that your decisions affect peoples' lives - when you stop seeing people as humans and just as statistics on a report.

The practice should be stopped - if not for moral reasons, then for health reasons or for criminal reasons. That shit ain't right. But if you forget that doing so has real impacts on people, families and communities, then a little part of the humanity inside you just died.

Foamy, you're obviously much more informed than I am on the subject and good discussion, here.

Kam, just so you understand, I'm not talking about "balance" or "fairness" here with the movie, that was probably never in the cards and I really don't have a problem with documentaries that express a point of view.

However, to clarify my point, I feel like the filmmakers just bit off more than they could chew - Japan-bashing pervades every minute of this film and it just was not necessary to make the point. It's almost as if they were channeling Frank Capra from "Why We Fight" or something.....and sorry, this is not World War II.

Am I saying the film should be banned or censured? Of course not. But I can definitely see how a lot of Japanese folks would be pissed off by this thing.

Meh... it's my job to appear informed while I frantically try to get up to speed (it's amusing how common this is, but fortunately I'm better at the "get up to speed part" than the "appear informed" part).

If I'm talking shit feel free to call me on it, I'd rather be corrected than be "right".

"I have no problem with docs being one sided - hey, sometimes that's just how the story falls out."

But when the story doesn't fall out that way, at least to the filmmaker's satisfaction, we might see the situation Geoff is describing.

Let the facts make the case, without such conspicuous manipulation.

I think the press release point about "discussion" involves provoking the Japanese to discuss whether this should change... or not.

Of course the film is biased and trying to tell a story. It's a Bourne movie for Dolphins. But I think the filmmakers would explain that they are pressing up against a long-established system of killing that is well hidden and kept out of the thoughts of Average Joe Japanese with Jedi mind tricks.

And while Foamy is surely right that these men and women go home to their kids and are just trying to survive, if your survival is based in destroying a species, you probably need to find another line of work if you don't want to be vilified.

Moreover, in terms of looking evil, I have always found that people on defense, feeling that they are about to have something taken away by strangers, look pretty angry, mean, and even evil.

"you probably need to find another line of work if you don't want to be vilified."

This assumes that another line of work is available - this isn't as easy as handing in your resignation and scanning the job ads in the local paper. It's a rural town with about 3500 people, you pretty much only get a job because it's the family business.

Two thirds of people will deliver lethal electric shocks to someone else just because someone in a white coat tells them to (8 people have commented in this thread so far - that means 5 of us would do it). Killing dolphins on the threat of consigning your family to poverty (or worse, considering the yakuza is involved) - that's a walk in the park by comparison.

The practice of culling dolphins is wrong and should change, but nearly every single visitor to this blog would do the same thing under the same conditions. That's not just rhetoric, that's the consistent scientific results that have been repeated again and again and again. The fishermen aren't evil, and aren't weaker human beings - if we forget that, then it's we who become lessened.

kam: darn it i don't get the science remark, sorry to be thick. i'm having a no-brainer day, maybe i'll have a light-bulb moment 3 days from now

geoff: i get your point re: the overt vilification of the fisherman, not having seen the movie i'm just flying blind, do you suspect a degree of xenophobia at work in the doc?

"Incidentally Leah, NZ doesn't have the greatest track record with fishery conservation either -"

actually, foamy, yes we do. compared to most parts of the world our 'track record' is very good - even when we were at our very worst - and in the last decade especially, our vigorous conservation efforts have paid off in spades. meanwhile, japan's conservation and sustainability practices have been, are and continue to be terrible.

"orange roughy has been overfished considerably for decades with the estimate that the quotas were three times what they probably should have been, and paua is notoriously protected due to overconsumption. Even the Kaikoura and Cook Strait crayfish are getting smaller and smaller despite conservation efforts, and that's in a country with a population of 4million compared to Japan's 128million, in addition to the fact that Japan lacks the farmland to support the 70million sheep and 4.5million beef cattle that New Zealand has to provide alternative food sources."

well, i don't know where you're getting your info but the examples you've given are rather sparse for a start - esp. given the incredible wealth of fish/shellfish/crustaceans in our waters, picking one species of fish doesn't really frame your argument well - and the other examples don't make much sense in the context of knocking nz fisheries conservation.

i live here, foamy; unless you live here, i don't see how you can have a clear understanding of nz fisheries management, which is - particularly now - amongst the most stringently monitored and protected in the world.

we are (unfortunately) one of very few countries on the planet with several substantial marine protection 'no fishing' zones, which have enabled fish stocks and ecosystems to replenish and subsequently become very robust and sustainable. because of this, biodiversity is maintained and fish stocks are currently at their highest in ages. also because of this, the commercial fishing industry is thriving. conservation ultimately means a healthy, profitable, sustainable fishing industry, a fact that would appear to escape the japanese entirely.

yes, orange roughy has been overfished at times in the past, (and indiscriminate japanese fishing in the seas around our land contributed to this decline), but conservation is about learning from mistakes, then adjusting and doing better. populations of roughy and all fish stock in our waters are currently not only sustainable but growing due to well-managed fisheries and commercial fishing.

paua is managed by quotas, the very nature of conservation, so i'm not sure what your point is there. paua has never been endangered from overconsumption, the shellfish are plentiful all around nz. they are traditional maori kai so particularly the harvest of undersized, immature paua in areas with large iwi is an issue and closely monitored by local iwi and the department of conservation to keep stocks sustainable as a traditional free food source. paua is well-managed and not under any threat, again the very definition effective conservation.

crayfish numbers (the cook straight is not a major crayfish habitat, the crays in this area live mainly in the marlborough sounds) around nz have been an issue for some time, but takes are strictly monitored by quota, which again is the definition of conservation. populations ARE on the increase, tho it's true crays don't tend to reach the size they once did, but they're still fucking huge. we just had one from the sounds the other day the size of large puppy. again, conservation IS working, it takes time, diligence and dedication.

japan's population is NO EXCUSE for their terrible conservation practices and the overfishing of their own waters and the ocean in general. if anything, a higher population necessitates an even more robust policy for sustainable fisheries; continuously depleting the sea around your own country and beyond is hugely counterproductive and $ driven with no eye for sustainability or the future.

perhaps the japanese need to look at alternate food sources so that they don't have to indiscriminately kill every living creature in the sea to survive.

as for the bluff analogy, that's just bizarre. yes, if bluff was no longer able to harvest oysters the town would suffer greatly, but are you seriously comparing the well-managed and monitored bluff oyster beds and the annual oyster harvest to the completely misguided annual slaughter of thousands of adult and baby dolphins in the most crude, cruel and barbaric way imaginable, because the fishermen blame the dolphins for what their own fishing industry has done to them, not to mention selling what they KNOW is toxic meat?

that is not the same thing at all. if the bluff oyster harvesters had to brutally slaughter dolphins to secure their haul, they simply wouldn't do it BECAUSE IT IS WRONG!

yes, there is such a thing as right and wrong, and humans don't just have the right to commit any horrific act just because they feel it's justified for some reason. that's bullshit and it's got to stop. the fact is, the fishermen at taiji have NO RIGHT to slaughter those dolphins, it is a despicable, disgusting, evil act of diminished humanity and it MUST END, along with japan's utterly bogus 'scientific whaling' so that rich people can nibble on whale meat.

i don't agree that 'anyone would do the same thing'. no. they do it because it's what they've always done and they are allowed to get away with it.

hopefully the next generation of kids in japan will lead the charge for a change in attitude along with a change in the management of japan's ocean resources, and their treatment of the ocean beyond their own waters as a sustainable resource.

also, i object using to the term 'culling' to describe what is done to the dolphins at taiji, because culling implies thinning a herd by necessity for the health of the herd, to prevent overpopulation and protection of the habitat.

none of these applies to what is done to the dolphins at taiji, which are SLAUGHERED for profit and the utterly misguided, debunked fallacy that they are responsible for eating too much fish. enough with the 'culling' lie.

shit, that would be SLAUGHTERED, typing really fast. sometimes i amaze myself with my speed, if only my accuracy was commensurate

You misunderstand - I'm not trying to excuse their behaviour. I don't give a shit what happens to the fisherman (well... that's not strictly true, they should be prosecuted for any and all illegal activities).

I care what happens to US.

The minute we start saying "I would never do that!" and "They are despicable, disgusting, evil!" that's when we start seeing them as things instead of people. And then a short while later you've got photos circulating showing people happily smiling while others are naked, humiliated, and tortured.

It CAN happen to us. In experiment after experiment after experiment, it has been consistently shown that people are capable of committing unthinkable atrocities - not because they're bad people, but because they're in bad situations.

And yes, that includes you and me. We are not special people who are somehow exempt, and believing that we are makes us blind to our own mistakes. Just like the fact that paua quotas are consistently exceeded. How do I know? Because I've talked with DoC workers who've openly admitted to aiding and abetting the practice. About a month ago.

If you're interested, there's a version of the Milgram Experiment that was conducted about 3 years ago on Youtube.

It's possibly not clear from the video how "real" it appears, but it's very traumatic for the participants - the "subject" begs to be let go, screams, and pleads with the "tester" to let them go... because they have a heart condition. Shortly later the sounds go ominously quiet...

foamy, i do understand the point you're making, even tho i don't necessarily agree with it.

(i don't see how those experiments are relevant, however; the taiji fishermen are not blindly following instruction to hack the dolphins to death for reasons they don't understand because someone in authority is telling them to, they are doing it of their own volition for reasons they fully understand. huge difference)

just to clarify a couple things:

"The minute we start saying "I would never do that!" and "They are despicable, disgusting, evil!" that's when we start seeing them as things instead of people."

i said, "it is a despicable, disgusting, evil act of diminished humanity and it MUST END". i did not say the fisherman were evil and disgusting, i said WHAT THEY ARE DOING is evil and disgusting, and there is a difference.

in my book what is done to those dolphins and how it is done is morally reprehensible, and the men who do it are morally bankrupt. i certainly would NEVER hack dolphins to death in a writhing sea of blood and pain, no. under no circumstances. (unless someone had my child and was going to hack him to death unless i hacked to death a baby dolphin, then yes, i would hope i could force myself to do it to save my kid from imminent danger/death)

the brutal slaughter of families of dolphins is OUTSIDE MY MORAL CODE. if it meant my family would starve, i'd find another way -- i'd leave that place and never return before i'd hack baby dolphins to death and knowingly sell their contaminated meat. it's a despicable act not worthy of humanity. the fishermen who do this are committing an atrocity. they choose to do a terrible, terrible thing, and for their actions, they are judged. that's how the world works.

they have options, they are fishermen for goodness sake, they can live anywhere by the sea. they are not imprisoned, they can fucking WALK out of there if that's what it takes to do the right thing. at some point, people just have to say 'enough', i won't do this any more.

the fact is, from what i've seen of the taiji fishermen over the years, THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT. they don't care about the unbelievable pain and suffering they inflict on the dolphins - in the midst of the slaughter they looked completely unfazed - or that their reason for killing them is bogus, or that the meat is contaminated. they are extremely defensive when questioned about it, because they KNOW they are engaged in something horrible; otherwise why would there be such a cloak of silence and secrecy and denial around the slaughter (until now at any rate), why not just discuss it openly if what you are doing is okay. they don't like the world knowing what they get up to every year because they KNOW it's nasty. but they do it anyway.

"Just like the fact that paua quotas are consistently exceeded. How do I know? Because I've talked with DoC workers who've openly admitted to aiding and abetting the practice. About a month ago."

just like the fact that paua quotas are exceeded? foamy, i don't understand, are you equating taking more pauas than you're supposed to off the rocks to the slaughter of thousands of dolphins?

i just have to ask, do you live here? i can't imagine you do, or you'd know that a paua is a mollusk, like an abalone but smaller; our shores are absolutely TEEMING with them, they're plentiful and common. i could go down the rocks near my house and easily pick up fifty of them in a half hour if i wanted to, and it would barely scratch the surface just in my little beach area.

as far as crimes against nature go, exceeding paua quotas is at the bottom of the list, certainly not a commendable practice for doc staff to engage in - perhaps they let it slide if people are feeding a big whanau or whathaveyou - but equating this to the hacking to death of thousands of dolphins is bizarre (if in fact that's what you were doing, i'm unclear about what you meant, i might have that all wrong). just because a person could engage in taking too many mollusks does NOT mean that same person is capable of the horrific slaughter dolphins, that is an unsupportable stretch of logic.

It's not outside your moral code - the experiments have shown time and time again that the average person will commit heinous atrocities. If you asked people "would you knowingly electrocute someone", 99.99% of people would say "Hell no! I'm a good person". But when placed in that situation, 2/3 of people would do the thing they vehemently claim they wouldn't - and there's no way of predicting who it will be. Education, race, colour, creed, whether they volunteer for charities, whether they regularly attend religious services, the experimenters couldn't find ANYTHING that would predict who would push the button and deliver a lethal electric shock and who wouldn't. Are the 2/3 of people who believe they just electrocuted someone morally bankrupt? Probably not - but they did it anyway.

You can say "I'm a good person, I wouldn't do it" but the evidence is that there is a greater than average chance that you would. Even without threatening your child. The evidence says I probably would too. Neither of us will find out unless we're put in that situation.

You're also misunderstanding my use of the paua example - I'm not trying to equate it with the slaughter of dolphins. The way you respond to my examples makes me believe you're thinking about the act being committed by the fishermen. Again, I'm not - I don't give a shit about them. I'm not trying to justify the slaughter of dolphins. Every time you say "are you trying to compare X to the Taiji..." NO. NO I'M NOT.

Ahem. ;)

I'm using it as an example of how you believe that things are one way, and reality is another. In this case, it's directed at you but I'd prefer to make a generalization to people as a whole.

It's how people make sense of the world - we make a model inside our heads of how the world works, but it's not perfect. It can't be - the world is just too complicated for us to hold all the details in our head, let alone the parts we don't know about. So we generalize. If you asked most people "Are you a good person?", again 99.99% of people would say "Yes". If you then asked "Have you ever taken anything that wasn't yours?", again 99.99% of people would say "Yes" (if they were being truthful). How can you reconcile those two facts? You're a good person... and yet you steal! So you justify it - "It wasn't anything important", "They didn't miss it", "I made up for it later".

Then you move on to bigger things, "Would you help someone in need?" "Of course!" "Well what about homeless people?" "Oh, I give change and donate to charities where I can" "How much does it cost for food and board for a week?" "I don't know... $100?" "So the money you gave probably lasted a day, maybe two?" "Yeah, but someone else will have given something..." "Did you bother to check?" "No..." "So you knew that person was homeless, and that your change probably wouldn't last a day, and you left them like that?"

We have to smooth out the rough edges. We'd go insane if we didn't. We have to take it on faith that no-one missed the thing we took. That someone else helped the homeless person too. That the fishing quotas are appropriate and properly enforced. And that the Taiji fisherman don't care that they're slaughtering dolphins. In reality, someone might have been really upset to find that thing missing. The homeless person might have frozen to death because no-one gave them shelter for a night. Over 1000 tonnes of paua might be poached every year. And the Taiji fishermen might prefer not to kill the dolphins, but feel they have no choice. We tell ourselves little lies every day because reality is too damn harsh to accept, but when we start telling ourselves lies about people - that they're evil, that they deserve what's coming to them, that they're less than human - that's when we start destroying our own humanity.

Should the fishermen be prosecuted for their actions? Yes. Is the slaughter of dolphins reprehensible? Absolutely. Are the Taiji fishermen unfeeling bastards who should spend the rest of their life feeling they pain they caused? Abso-fucking-lutely not - not because they don't deserve it, but because whoever does that to them is committing their own crime. If they're going to be prosecuted it has to be done with justice and the full knowledge of the impact it will have - and we'll have to live with that and not pretend we didn't just commit their children to a life of hardship.

And, yes, I have lived in New Zealand although I currently don't. I've changed countries every 2-3 years since I was 2 years old. I've had an... interesting... life. And, yes, paua is notoriously protected - you know all the restrictions on it. And I'm guessing you probably know what would happen if those restrictions were not in place. I don't believe I ever referred to it as anything that wasn't a mollusc either.

Incidentally, I don't mean to imply that you'd happily disembowel them and dance on their graves singing "Hallelujah!". The "unfeeling bastards who should spend the rest of their life feeling they pain they caused" was hyperbole to emphasise the point.

But, yeah, they're regular people - just like you and me. They should be prosecuted, but we shouldn't tell ourselves they're fundamentally evil people just so we can sleep well at night.

I don't disagree with you, Foamy, though I would add that mindset is cultural. Americans don't really think about destroying the Native American or seriously consider the ramifications of bringing slaves to this country. Not everyone - not the majority... not even a big minority - who was involved was EVIL.

The banality of evil being done is one of the scariest things about evil.

And it doesn't have to be this black and white. Watch Joe Berlinger's "Crude" and you have to think about the people who created the crisis that American companies are still trying to pretend were not their fault.

The greatest doc - one of the all-time greats - for seeing how unexciting involvement with true evil can be is Shoah.

Of course, just a few weeks ago, I was being argued with by a Dartmouth student that America didn't know that Jews were being killed in the concentration camps before we got to them. Number being killed, sure. Ovens, maybe. But we knew how many were going in and that none were coming out. FDR's hands are not clean. And what a hero president he was!

And even in The Cove, I think that part of the scary thing in the movie is that the "bad guys" are goofs on some level. They are very, very serious, but where it is most clearly not a Bond movie is the villains. Not a Goldfinger or Oddjob in the lot.

good points, DP

i understand what you're saying, foamy, but i honestly don't see how all this complex examination of the human psyche and what people are and are not capable of has anything to to with the fishermen at taiji.

your argument 'there but for the grace of god go i' and the 'anyone is capable of anything if pushed' is interesting but irrelevant to the case of the butchers of taiji in my opinion. they are simply doing what they've always done (based on a deeply flawed assumption about the dolphins and very likely more influenced by the $ they get for selling the contaminated meat) and they really do not appear to have a problem with it, their attitude towards the dolphins reflecting the generally very cavalier attitude of the japanese when it comes to the humane treatment of animals and animal welfare.

one thing is clear: they don't care for having their dirty little secret 'exposed' to the world -- just from the statements made by the fishermen's representative after viewing 'the cove' (in toronto i think?), as a collective at least the fishermen continue to defend their actions, don't consider what they are doing wrong, and consider those fighting for the rights of the dolphins not to be mercilessly butchered in their thousands as an intrusion of outsiders in their business. THAT is a biggest problem. people doing evil things because they either refuse or just don't see that what they are doing is fundamentally wrong.

ftr, i don't believe the taiji fishermen should be prosecuted or spend an eternity of pain akin to that which they have inflicted - i've never said or advocated that, and i don't think anyone in the discussion here has - i just think the slaughter must STOP. right now. that's the solution.

but i have very little confidence this will happen. the japanese are still managing to practice commercial WHALING for goodness sake, even when the practice is internationally banned, getting around and away with it by using absurd semantics. this does not bode well for the welfare of the dolphins

"It's not outside your moral code - the experiments have shown time and time again that the average person will commit heinous atrocities."

just forgot to say, yes, it is outside my moral code. i don't care what experiments show or what you assume people are unknowingly capable of based on those experiments, experiments are just that, experiments, and they are not conclusive, written in stone or infallible. i know myself and nobody speaks for me or my moral code but me.

"i don't believe the taiji fishermen should be prosecuted or spend an eternity of pain akin to that which they have inflicted - i've never said or advocated that"

This is the point where I ask you to reread what I wrote.

I will repeat, for the fourth or fifth time, this is absolutely nothing to do with how the fishermen are acting. This is absolutely to do with how we are reacting. DP's point that evil thrives while good people stand aside is crucial to the point I'm making, and the psychological arguments I refer to - people do so because they lie to themselves in their head, "It's not that bad, maybe it'll go away, in 10 years time no-one will remember anyway, I don't want to be remembered as the person who committed millions of people to a war". And they leave themselves vulnerable by repeating the biggest lie of all, "I would never do that".

Maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you're correct in saying that you'd be in the minority who'd say "no". But over two thirds of people think the same as you - and they will be wrong. Why do you think you're special?

Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?

isn't blogging fun? an fascinating experiment in attempting to express one's thoughts and feelings clearly and without misunderstanding or misinterpretation, to communicate with others doing the exact same thing, with the written word as your only tool. a challenge i'm not always up to but there's an undeniable attraction just in the effort.

anyhoo, foamy, my comment re: not prosecuting the fishermen was in response to your statement upthread:

"Should the fishermen be prosecuted for their actions? Yes"

just pointing out it's not like i was veering wildly off-topic

"This is the point where I ask you to reread what I wrote.

I will repeat, for the fourth or fifth time, this is absolutely nothing to do with how the fishermen are acting. This is absolutely to do with how we are reacting."

well, i've said several times that i understand what you're getting at, that you think this is about us and our response, and I DON'T AGREE.

i don't think this is about us and our 2 in 3 chance of becoming mengele if coerced (which i don't actually believe one way or another, experiments are just that: experiments, they are not real life in real time, that is the acid test and no one knows definitively what people will do or not do from contrived experiments; but as individuals we can and must have the courage of our convictions, otherwise what is there in life to cling to?), i think this is about the fishermen and their attitudes. you clearly think this is about us, i clearly do not.

i am in complete agreement with DP's point that evil takes root when good people do nothing, tho. all too often the sad story of human history.

The "reread" thing was specifically meant to redirect you to where I said "I don't mean to imply that you'd happily disembowel them and dance on their graves", since three hours later you replied "i don't believe the taiji fishermen should be prosecuted or spend an eternity of pain akin to that which they have inflicted - i've never said or advocated that".

It's responses like that which make me suspect that you may not be getting what I'm writing in its entirety - it may be that I'm communicating badly (hey, I'm not the greatest writer in the world), but I would encourage you to not jump to conclusions all the same. I'm moderately bemused by the fact that you disagree that I "think this is about us and our response". What do you think I think this about then, since I'm the one who initiated this particular avenue of discussion?

I am also in complete agreement with DP's point that evil takes root when good people do nothing. But history (and scientific experiments) has consistently shown that evil continues to repeat because people believe that they are somehow special and it only happens to other people.

Unless we are willing to go to Taiji and tell the fishermen's elementary school children that you think their parents should go to jail for a very long time, then I don't think we're in a position to throw stones. And if we feel no remorse for performing such an act, then we're not fit to judge either. Unless we're willing to accept that you, me, and everyone we know are capable of performing atrocities, then we are unprepared to prevent them. Because, hey, only bad people do those things, right?

my bobble-head hurts!

"What do you think I think this about then, since I'm the one who initiated this particular avenue of discussion?"

therein lies the rub: i think it's about the fishermen and their attitudes, you think it's about our response to them and our own capacity to do evil (pity it's taken 15,000 words and multi-multiparagraphs to figure that out), but this discussion has helped me to at least clarify my own thoughts and feelings on the matter in attempting to explain them.

"But history (and scientific experiments) has consistently shown that evil continues to repeat because people believe that they are somehow special and it only happens to other people."

see, i'm not convinced that history and experiments have shown shone that evil rears its head again and again because people believe they are somehow special and it only happens to other people. that's your interpretation and i'm good with that, fair enough. but i think the reasons people commit despicable, loathsome acts and get away with it are more varied than that, and that apathy as a component of human nature often figures heavily into the equation.

to be a completest:

"Unless we are willing to go to Taiji and tell the fishermen's elementary school children that you think their parents should go to jail for a very long time, then I don't think we're in a position to throw stones."

i don't understand that line of logic at all, i don't see how telling poor kids that their parents should be in jail puts us in the position to throw stone. also, if the 'collective' can't stand up and say, THIS IS WRONG and it needs to change, then what sort of world do we live in, we just accept it that people do horrible things and no-one can speak out against it? that's not right

"Unless we're willing to accept that you, me, and everyone we know are capable of performing atrocities, then we are unprepared to prevent them."

i just don't agree with that, and i don't think it's true. that's fine if you do, but it's not a given

"i don't understand that line of logic at all"

Because it's about accepting responsibility. Just as the Taiji fishermen need to accept that by their actions the world has been made a slightly worse place, so must we. If our actions and support for The Cove cause the fishermen to go to prison, and thereby make the world a slightly worse place for the families and community of Taiji, then we should also shoulder that responsibility. We shouldn't shy away from something because it is difficult or painful, but we absolutely need to recognize that pain. By passing it off and saying "it's their fault" we lessen ourselves - the phrase "I was just doing my job" is notorious in history. We just have to take it on faith that, on the whole, the balance has been changed for the better.

"i just don't agree with that, and i don't think it's true. that's fine if you do, but it's not a given"

To flip it around, if we believed that we only capable of performing pure acts, then any act we commit would pass without the slightest questioning whether it was right or not. To stop committing acts that are hurtful to others, we have to first question our own actions - and stop ourselves from carrying them out.

I agree with you, Foamy, and that's why The Cove ultimately fails as a film, because it's so one-sided. These issues are complex and multi-faceted and if there were easy solutions, they would have been solved already.

Same reasoning applies to Avatar.

Hey, no-one's supposed to agree with me! I'm supposed to babble inanely for a day or two before we all ignore it and move onto the next blog entry...