Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai007
I guess I see it like this: Let's say Al Queda came to America and said "we don't like being hunted and despised outlaws, but we refuse to stop killing. But we'll make you an offer... remove us from the list of terrorist groups, stop chasing us, legalize our actions to give us legitimacy, and we promise to kill only half as many Americans over the next 10 years as we killed in the last 10. This will save the lives of thousands of Americans!" Should we accept such a deal, even if they could be trusted to uphold their end of it? I would say no.
(I don't mean to compare Japan and Al Queda as morally equivalent, they most definitely aren't, and killing whales is not the same as killing people. I'm just trying to make a point that even if a deal can be trusted to save lives, some deals aren't worth it.)
|
The biggest flaw with this comparison is that Japan isn`t doing something illegal. Are they taking advantage of a loophole? YES. But that doesn`t mean that they`re doing something illegal. You have to be aware of the law and follow it pretty closely to find and take advantage of loopholes.
The comparison would make sense if, say, Al Qaeda was taking advantage of a loophole and killing people in a way that was "legal". But, umm... They`re not.