this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
607 points (97.9% liked)

World News

32285 readers
535 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] musus@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Im Icelandic and I can confirm this. This massive asshole (Kristjan Loftson) has plenty of money and one hobby, killing whales. He as lost aprox. 20m€ on whaling in the years he has been hunting them.

[–] BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

...kill him?

I mean, or watch hundreds, thousands of whales die.

Just one dude, man. I dunno, not Icelandic so it isn't really an opportunity I'd have but, um. If all else fails, right?

that's not right

The train's gonna hit something. Pull the lever.

[–] musus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

He will probably kill 10-20 finback whales so we are not talking about very large numbers. Also it would not be good for Icelandic politics if someone would kill him, he could become somekind if whale killer martyr and Iceland would continue to kill whales after his death.

[–] shottymcb@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

he could become somekind if whale killer martyr

Well that's just as easily solved by more killing. There can't be more than like 20 people in the country that have a massive boner for murdering whales.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

The killing will continue until morale improves

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would it be more whales? Less?

There's a minimum whale population before genetic defects start having impact between mates..

I'm not advocating direct violence, but mixing sand into the hunting boat's engine oil and other more peaceful methods should be considered if the government won't listen to reason by its people.

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you kill the next figurehead for whaling. Eventually, they'll get the point.

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whatw as that expression again.. "an eye for an eye... Is a really great idea"?

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Killing evil people is a time-honored tradition.

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then who will kill the people who became evil by murdering?

[–] leftzero@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm sure we can find volunteers willing to kill themselves once they're done with the killing. 🤷‍♂️

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Killing someone is not inherently evil.

See also tolerance paradox.

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless you subscribe to any one of most of the worlds' belief systems. Or unless your parents did and some of it sort of rubbed off on you. Or if you think law and order is important. But outside of that, yeah, of course, killing is completely neutral moral gray area. /s

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Virtually all legal systems make allowances for killing someone in self-defense.

And you could probably fill a library with all the written works on the ethics of killing.

But yeah, sure, let's just pretend that it's completely self-evident that killing is always wrong.

Who said it's morally neutral?

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"killing isn't inherently wrong"

I don't care to argue anymore semantics. You get what I'm saying and I get you. I just think that killing feels wrong for good reason, and that's a very popular opinion. Stop acting like it's a silly one.

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Killing is wrong in general, but can be justified by circumstances.

It is never neutral. Only ever unacceptable or justified.

E.g. killing billions by making the world uninhabitable is unacceptable, whereas smashing an oil execs face in with a baseball bat is obviously justified.

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you would have no qualms explaining that to their 4 year old daughter who watched you do it.

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Why would I force a child to watch violence? You're a very strange person.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

let the whales decide his fate

[–] unscholarly_source@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If he's doing this for profit, there has to be a consumer... Who are the consumers and what are they buying?

[–] muix@infosec.pub 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sadly, there is whale meat in our supermarkets and restaurants. The only reason they can sell it is because the some of the whale is "necessary" for "research", and the meat is a "byproduct".

[–] unscholarly_source@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What kind of research necessitates killing whales??

[–] running_tadpole@lemdro.id 16 points 1 year ago

Research of the taste of whale meat

[–] Chev@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Why are you government or judges so shady when it comes to this? Like, what is the actual reasson, that this is not forbidden and nobody is in jail? You have a democracy in iceland, right?