# Fabulously wealthy? Take a pirate hunting cruise



## RenegadeDave (Jun 25, 2009)

Armed private yachts offering pirate-hunting cruises off Somalia

Part of me thinks this is awesome, part of me thinks this is morbid.


----------



## arktan (Jun 25, 2009)

100% of me thinks this is retarded. 

But anyway, since we abolished roman stadiums, stopped public beheadings and hangings, abolished the duells and figths to the death we need other means to entertain ourselves.

Those who can afford it go for it. Is it good or bad... Hell, i don't know. But it is fucked up.


----------



## Arminius (Jun 25, 2009)

that website said:


> Rich Russians with money to burn can sign up for pirate-hunting cruises on armed private yachts off the Somali coast, the website Ananova reports. Wealthy punters pay *$6,620 a day *to patrol the most dangerous waters in the world hoping to be attacked by raiders. When attacked, they retaliate with grenade launchers, machine guns and rocket launchers, says the Austrian business paper Wirtschaftsblatt. For an extra *$9.45* *a day they get an AK-47 machine gun,* pictured, while 100 rounds of ammo cost $13.25. They are also protected by a squad of former special forces. The yachts travel from Djibouti in Somalia to Mombasa in Kenya. They deliberately cruise close to the coast at a speed of just five nautical miles in an attempt to attract the interest of pirates.



so after paying $6,620 you still have to pay extra for a gun?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 25, 2009)

Aysakh said:


> so after paying $6,620 you still have to pay extra for a gun?



yeah I thought that.

well it looks like to participate in this seemingly immoral task one must not only have muchos cojones but also have muchos villanos too


----------



## cycloptopus (Jun 25, 2009)

the craziest thing about it is that the Somali pirates are poor and desparate. Not that its right, but now you got rich Russians hunting poor bastards in a twisted pirate war. Ultimately the rich guys still win.


----------



## cpnhowdy (Jun 25, 2009)

I think it`s ingenious. Being poor does not give anyone the right to threaten your life and property. So I see these "cruises" as providing a benefit to society. After a couple of encounters, pirates will very wary of any vessal they try to attack and we may see a severe decline in piracy. 
Definately would need huge balls of steel to join though.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 25, 2009)

cycloptopus said:


> the craziest thing about it is that the Somali pirates are poor and desparate. Not that its right, but now you got rich Russians hunting poor bastards in a twisted pirate war. Ultimately the rich guys still win.



They're also fucking stupid, irresponsible cunts who can't do anything of use other than point guns at innocents. Have sympathy for the people who actually deserve it - the minute you take hostages at gunpoint you've thrown away any claim to being human.

Jeff


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 25, 2009)

That looks really fun


----------



## silentrage (Jun 25, 2009)

only humans. :sigh:


----------



## JBroll (Jun 25, 2009)

Not really, since animals that congregate into tribes can still wage warfare...

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 25, 2009)

Someone pay me $6,620/day and I'll go out hunting pirates in a plastic raft AND I'll supply my own weapons and ammunition. Where do I sign up?


----------



## Rick (Jun 25, 2009)

I'll join.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 25, 2009)

Yeah but only humans are capable of morals and standards, or so I thought.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 25, 2009)

Only humans would assume that.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 25, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Yeah but only humans are capable of morals and standards, or so I thought.



What are these morals and standards you speak of? We humans have none of these traits.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 25, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Only humans would assume that.
> 
> Jeff



Thus, "only humans".

I WIN!


----------



## JBroll (Jun 25, 2009)

No, I win for parodying a fallacious statement in an obviously absurd way. You do get points for the setup, though...

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Jun 25, 2009)

Well played sir.

This just occurred to me, what if there's a somalian jean-claude-van-damme and he wtfslowmoroundhousekicktothefacepwns these rich people who hunt humans for sport? Somalia used to be a french colony right? It could happen...

@Jeff, you don't just crush dreams, even random fleeting thoughts are not spared.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 25, 2009)

Some play to win. I play to win, crush the dreams of those around me, and have sexy fucking pigtails in the process.

Jeff


----------



## TheSixthWheel (Jun 25, 2009)

This thread is both absurd and comedic.....keep it up


----------



## JBroll (Jun 25, 2009)

Sure thing.







Jeff


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 25, 2009)

oh wow


----------



## silentrage (Jun 25, 2009)

@Jeff,

I was gonna ask whether your DP was yourself or hairtrucci, now I know the answer.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 25, 2009)

My what?

Jeff


----------



## Anthony (Jun 25, 2009)

Your double penetration, obviously.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 25, 2009)

I am most confused.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Jun 25, 2009)

display pic. /facepalm


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 26, 2009)

for that much money I should be able to shoot a missile at them


----------



## JBroll (Jun 26, 2009)

silentrage said:


> display pic. /facepalm



Around here we call those them things there 'avatars'... you no-good fahrgners...

Jeff


----------



## Xaios (Jun 26, 2009)

Well now, here we go. First we have desperate pirates hunting merchant ships for loot and ransom. Then we've got rich russian people hunting said pirates for sport. Who knows, maybe there's a few of them with a pirate head or two hanging on the mantle.

"I got this rhino horn hunting in central Africa. Then I got these deer antlers hunting in northwestern Canada. Look at the size of them suckers, huh? But my prize kill is this Somalian pirate head that I got from a kill off the horn of Africa. Almost didn't get it at all though, the rest of him got blasted to smitherines when I hit him with the trusty ole' RPG."

"Whaddaya mean, what's so special about this kill? Just... LOOK HOW BLACK HE IS! Seriously, even for trophy kills, that's pretty darn rare!"























Disgusting. Someone stop the world, I want to get off.


----------



## damigu (Jun 26, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you're wearing your shirt backwards.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 26, 2009)

JBroll said:


> They're also fucking stupid, irresponsible cunts who can't do anything of use other than point guns at innocents. Have sympathy for the people who actually deserve it - the minute you take hostages at gunpoint you've thrown away any claim to being human.
> 
> Jeff



I'm pretty sure you'd think differently if you'd grown up in Somalia. I don't agree with what they do but it's very easy for you to call them stupid and irresponsible cunts when you've had the luxury of growing up in one of the most developed and wealthy countries in the world.


----------



## arktan (Jun 26, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'm pretty sure you'd think differently if you'd grown up in Somalia. I don't agree with what they do but it's very easy for you to call them stupid and irresponsible cunts when you've had the luxury of growing up in one of the most developed and wealthy countries in the world.





Moral and ethics apply only when you're not hungry (and can afford medical treatment for your family and yourself, especially in Africa)...

So yeah, i too see where the "pirates" are coming from and that's why i don't understand this whole "Die motherfuckers! Die!" thing. Some of them do it for their families and risk their lifes. While it's nothing admirable i would do exactly the same if i were in their shoes and probably everyone else would too. 
In short: I don't like them but i don't hate them either, since we'd be the same if the circumstances were the same too.

That's why i think it's fucked up to hunt them down like if it were a vacation special. We've got our navies for that, they're far more professional 
-> I can tell you right now that there will be tortured Somalis (Yeah, i'll call them Somalis from now on, not pirates) if some of those pay-to-hunt-freaks get them. Who the hell will tell the authorities anyway if some guys have some more fun on the high seas by spilling the guts of a captured Somali while he's still alive and then make him eat them. Hell, if they pay 6k/day for that then some of them definately WILL want to get the "most out of it".
There will be a few questions that we will have to face in the near future and they won't be answerable with moral equations.


And hey, if you like hiphop then you can not hate the "pirates":
They're just trying to get rich or die tryin'


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

arktan said:


> So yeah, i too see where the "pirates" are coming from and that's why i don't understand this whole "Die motherfuckers! Die!" thing. Some of them do it for their families and risk their lifes. While it's nothing admirable i would do exactly the same if i were in their shoes and probably everyone else would too.
> In short: I don't like them but i don't hate them either, since we'd be the same if the circumstances were the same too.


Your sympathy is severely misplaced. If one is a pirate, some assumptions can be made with a high degree of accuracy.


They have a boat
They have nets, or you have guns which can be traded to someone for nets

Ergo? Go fishing. You can feed your family without becoming a gimme. Only the mentally lazy resort to stealing.

Technically, I fit the profile of a new thief. I'm out of work, and have bills to pay. Food is hard to put on the table. I still manage, by going out and doing odd jobs here and there. The work is still plentiful, if one has any ambition to get off one's lazy Ass to go and find it.

Morals and ethics can be upheld even in times of belt tightening. The ones who do not are the ones who never held them in high regard in the first place, and I have no moral qualms exterminating them. Especially if I could get paid to do so.

Also, Jeff, your sexiness frightens and arouses me.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 26, 2009)

^ that's the worst example I've ever heard


----------



## arktan (Jun 26, 2009)

I have no sympathy for them. I just don't feel the urge to justify myselt telling "Kill'em, they deserved it anyway!" because i wouldn't act differently if i were in their shoes.
And frankly, your problems (and mine together) are _nothing_ compared to the problems the people face there.

Work is still plentiful in the US and Europe if one wants it... not in Somalia. Hunger is plentiful there and, ironically, they are doing something about it. They're putting their lifes on the game -> so saying that they're lazy is downright wrong if it happens in those numbers like in Somalia. It's merely an indicator of how desperate the people are.

And again, i do not feel any symphaty for them. I just don't feel the urge to wish their deaths and to justify it with first-world morals.



EDIT: Damn, Dave 'd me


----------



## ivancic1al (Jun 26, 2009)

i knew it was only a matter of time until some inhumane bastard thought up some sick way to amuse the bored filthy rich bastards of the world.....disappointing


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

Morals my ass, I admire you if you can uphold yours in desperate times, but when some of the people I know *cough cough* get in a tight spot, they will evade taxes, cheat the gov out of extra EI money, work under the table, sell counterfeit games or mod chips, etc etc, all of which constitute some kind of stealing. 
Like someone said, it's easy to judge when you're up high, but when you fall on your face, you'll do the same as everyone else.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 26, 2009)

silentrage said:


> it's easy to judge when you're up high, but when you fall on your face, you'll do the same as everyone else.



exactly


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Morals my ass, I admire you if you can uphold yours in desperate times, but when some of the people I know *cough cough* get in a tight spot, they will evade taxes, cheat the gov out of extra EI money, work under the table, sell counterfeit games or mod chips, etc etc, all of which constitute some kind of stealing.
> Like someone said, it's easy to judge when you're up high, but when you fall on your face, you'll do the same as everyone else.



I never said my morals include paying Uncle Sam. I do not morally support what the federal government is/has been doing, and now, I don't have to financially support them, either. I've NEVER claimed any income that did not come from a paycheck-issuing employer. I meant working under the table when I said odd jobs.

This year I expect to be below the poverty line, which means I get a 100% refund of all taxes paid. 



arktan said:


> Work is still plentiful in the US and Europe if one wants it... not in Somalia. Hunger is plentiful there and, ironically, they are doing something about it. They're putting their lifes on the game -> so saying that they're lazy is downright wrong if it happens in those numbers like in Somalia. It's merely an indicator of how desperate the people are.



I said MENTALLY lazy. They can't think long enough to realize they're in a boat, in the ocean. There's a plethora of food available in the typical ocean. Fishing tends to be a whole lot safer, too.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

That wasn't an accusation, that was an example of how little it takes for morals and lawfulness to fall victim to the need to maintain a lifestyle.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

silentrage said:


> That wasn't an accusation, that was an example of how little it takes for morals and lawfulness to fall victim to the need to maintain a lifestyle.



Therein lies the problem. People that expect to maintain a lifestyle in hard times are stupid.

My lifestyle changes to fit my circumstances. There are a lot of guitars and amps and guns and motorcycles and cars I want to be buying, but my circumstances do not allow. Now if someone were paying me $6,620/day to go out and hunt pirates, well, then I'd be able to get back into that lifestyle, but so far I haven't been offered the job.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

Yeah, so it's natural to have to adjust your lifestyle and your morals depending on how good/bad your situation is.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 26, 2009)

Lifestyle, maybe - but nobody else should have to suffer because you fail at providing for yourself and your family. Moral judgment is either based on reason and respect for the rights of others or complete rubbish.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

If you guys can uphold your morals when you're destitute, then you're better persons than me, so all the more power to ya. I hope no one has to find out where their moral limits lay.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Yeah, so it's natural to have to adjust your lifestyle and your morals depending on how good/bad your situation is.



Like I said, I'd like to be buying a whole bunch of shit right now... But the only way to do so in the immediate future would be to go rob a bank. (I'll forgo the diatribe on the current moral status of robbing banks )

I simply adjust my lifestyle to conform to my morals. The opposite would be adjusting my morals to conform to my lifestyle. There is no AND.

Also, something I'm noticing in the conversation is putting the egg before the chicken. It's not a case of lowering your standards as a result of extreme hardships, (and yes, theirs are much worse than mine), it's a case of lowered standards CAUSING extreme hardships, which in turn lowers standards further. Causation's a bitch, ain't it?


----------



## damigu (Jun 26, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Your sympathy is severely misplaced. If one is a pirate, some assumptions can be made with a high degree of accuracy.
> 
> 
> They have a boat
> ...



do you know one of the main reasons why somali piracy started in the first place?

ships from other nations were/are illegally fishing and dumping waste in their waters.

so riddle me this: how do you support a nation on fishing when other people are both stealing AND tainting the fishing resources?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 26, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Lifestyle, maybe - but nobody else should have to suffer because you fail at providing for yourself and your family. Moral judgment is either based on reason and respect for the rights of others or complete rubbish.





damigu said:


> how do you support a nation on fishing when other people are both stealing AND tainting the fishing resources?



when someone shits on you, you shit on someone else.

especially if you have children's mouths to feed.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

damigu said:


> do you know one of the main reasons why somali piracy started in the first place?
> 
> ships from other nations were/are illegally fishing and dumping waste in their waters.
> 
> so riddle me this: how do you support a nation on fishing when other people are both stealing AND tainting the fishing resources?



I'll admit this was an unknown development to me, however...

If they've got guns and boats, then maybe they should have taken care of THAT problem instead turning to piracy perhaps? 

If someone comes and starts torching my garden, I don't go rob my neighbor, I stop the person burning my garden! 

It seems to me as if the further we go up the chain of wrongness, we keep stumbling over links where someone willingly lowered the standards.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Like I said, I'd like to be buying a whole bunch of shit right now... But the only way to do so in the immediate future would be to go rob a bank. (I'll forgo the diatribe on the current moral status of robbing banks )
> 
> I simply adjust my lifestyle to conform to my morals. The opposite would be adjusting my morals to conform to my lifestyle. There is no AND.
> 
> Also, something I'm noticing in the conversation is putting the egg before the chicken. It's not a case of lowering your standards as a result of extreme hardships, (and yes, theirs are much worse than mine), it's a case of lowered standards CAUSING extreme hardships, which in turn lowers standards further. Causation's a bitch, ain't it?



You'd like to buy a bunch of shit, some people like to not starve to death.

If you were born in a flies infested shed in a 3rd world country, that constitutes the "egg" in this dialogue.


----------



## damigu (Jun 26, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I'll admit this was an unknown development to me, however...
> 
> If they've got guns and boats, then maybe they should have taken care of THAT problem instead turning to piracy perhaps?
> 
> ...



considering that developed nations (including america), with all of their resources and armies and navies can't stop illegal fishing and dumping, how do you expect a destitute country to be able to?

and while they're out trying to fight illegal fishing and dumping, who is feeding their children?

i'm not justifying theft. just trying to point out that you're EXTREMELY oversimplifying the matter.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

silentrage said:


> You'd like to buy a bunch of shit, some people like to not starve to death.
> 
> If you were born in a flies infested shed in a 3rd world country, that constitutes the "egg" in this dialogue.


Mmm... Eggs.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

Careful with the yolk, that stuff'll kill ya.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

damigu said:


> considering that developed nations (including america), with all of their resources and armies and navies can't stop illegal fishing and dumping, how do you expect a destitute country to be able to?
> 
> and while they're out trying to fight illegal fishing and dumping, who is feeding their children?
> 
> i'm not justifying theft. just trying to point out that you're EXTREMELY oversimplifying the matter.



Our navies aren't large enough, and can never be large enough, to cover our borders. However, there are enough private ships out to cover our entire coastline on both sides. More lowered standards. If I lived remotely close to a shore I would slap people upside the head for their mental laziness, I assure you.

Learn how to shoot one-handed, and fish one-handed.

I think the matter is being over-complicated, really.



silentrage said:


> Careful with the yolk, that stuff'll kill ya.



Nah, that's the best part.


----------



## damigu (Jun 26, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Our navies aren't large enough, and can never be large enough, to cover our borders. However, there are enough private ships out to cover our entire coastline on both sides. More lowered standards. If I lived remotely close to a shore I would slap people upside the head for their mental laziness, I assure you.



where do you think the private ships (sometimes company owned, sometimes independents) that do the illegal fishing and dumping come from!!
developed nations, like our own! it doesn't make sense to ask the people responsible for the illegal activity to guard against it!

but this is getting off topic.


since you think it's getting over-complicated, let me boil it down to the simplest thing:

if my family were at risk of starvation/death, i would become an unstoppable force to do whatever i have to in order to ensure their survival.
by my own nature, i would regard violence as a last resort. but if that's what it came down to after more "legitimate" methods failed, then so be it.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

damigu said:


> where do you think the private ships (sometimes company owned, sometimes independents) that do the illegal fishing and dumping come from!!
> developed nations, like our own! it doesn't make sense to ask the people responsible for the illegal activity to guard against it!


Completely missed my point. I'm talking of PERSONAL responsibility.



damigu said:


> since you think it's getting over-complicated, let me boil it down to the simplest thing:
> 
> if my family were at risk of starvation/death, i would become an unstoppable force to do whatever i have to in order to ensure their survival.
> by my own nature, i would regard violence as a last resort. but if that's what it came down to after more "legitimate" methods failed, then so be it.


Again, it comes back to your morality dictating your actions, or not. Either you see the path that allows you to win over your oppressors, or you don't, and you become just like them.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

I'm gonna go ahead and miss your point too. 
So nations can act irresponsibly, but persons can't?


----------



## Rick (Jun 26, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Again, it comes back to your morality dictating your actions, or not. Either you see the path that allows you to win over your oppressors, or you don't, and you become just like them.



That's pretty much it. Yeah, you may be starving or have kids that are starving but becoming a pirate is not good parenting, IMO. It's showing zero morality.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 26, 2009)

you all wouldn't be talking about morality if you were Somalian 

you can't pretend to know or even begin to understand what they are going through that pushes these pirates to do this. they are doing what is necessary and if anything I respect them rather than the Somali men who are sat on their asses not doing a thing to provide for their family.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

^ That's what I think.
But some people think they can maintain their morality under the most dire situations.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 26, 2009)

when you're not brought up with Western morals, I severely doubt that you give a shit about them, especially when your family is starving and you may have even lost children to starvation.



damigu said:


> if my family were at risk of starvation/death, i would become an unstoppable force to do whatever i have to in order to ensure their survival.



yep, this.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

Ah, interesting point. I almost forgot, like in some asian countries it's perfectly normal to eat dog and horse meat, here it's a despicable act of cruelty.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

silentrage said:


> I'm gonna go ahead and miss your point too.
> So nations can act irresponsibly, but persons can't?


Nations don't act, people do. And if you have people in positions of power acting irresponsibly, that is because they are allowed to by the irresponsibility of those who put them in power.



silentrage said:


> Ah, interesting point. I almost forgot, like in some asian countries it's perfectly normal to eat dog and horse meat, here it's a despicable act of cruelty.



Which is even more odd because we can horse meat for dog food. 

Another point I'd like to make. We're sitting here, talking about families and mouths to feed, but do we even know whether or not these pirates even have families? It's equally probable that their just in it for the money, and there's no starving going on, at least among the pirate clique.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 26, 2009)

Yeah can't say for sure, but the point is poverty breeds crime. 

And nations do act irresponsibly. If you allow corporations and lobbyists to influence your politicians so that they can engage in illegal or immoral activities without consequences, your nation is acting irresponsibly.


----------



## scottro202 (Jun 26, 2009)

lets think of pirating on a simpler level:

you are a father of 2 kids, and have a wife. it's thanksgiving (you're in america). you have no money, and live in a shack. you go and steal a turkey so your family can enjoy thanksgiving. 
that's what the pirates are doing, just on a bigger level. 

like someone said, poverty breeds crime (or something like that). does that justify the crime done? no. is the father who stole the turkey justified? no. it's just how things are in the world.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 26, 2009)

silentrage said:


> And nations do act irresponsibly. If you allow corporations and lobbyists to influence your politicians so that they can engage in illegal or immoral activities without consequences, your nation is acting irresponsibly.



A nation, is a pile of dirt. It doesn't act, save for landslides.

It's this exact thought process that leads to where we are today. Personal irresponsibility is the root cause of "national" irresponsibility.



scottro202 said:


> lets think of pirating on a simpler level:
> 
> you are a father of 2 kids, and have a wife. it's thanksgiving (you're in america). you have no money, and live in a shack. you go and steal a turkey so your family can enjoy thanksgiving.
> that's what the pirates are doing, just on a bigger level.


Something we still don't know for fact.


----------



## damigu (Jun 26, 2009)

somalia has been in a state of civil war since the early 80's. they have an extremely tenuous government only recently set up with no significant power/control. the average lifespan is 48 years.
think about what that means: there are 2 entire GENERATIONS of people in somalia right now who have never known a life other than war--literally, fighting every day just to stay alive. and most of the elders who would normally be passing on culture and morality to the youth are dead.

how you can presume to project your morality someone like that?
morality is not objective. it isn't hard coded into our genetics. as someone else said earlier in this thread, morality is a matter of circumstance.
(case in point: i'm sure we all agree that female circumcision is barbaric, yet over 70% of males in america are circumsized. so where exactly is that moral line?)


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

The Thanksgiving turkey comparison fails INSTANTLY on the grounds that nowhere was threatening civilians with automatic rifles involved. For fuck's sake, sympathy is one thing - but being a blathering vagina solely for the sake of trying to seem more 'in touch with the world' or 'compassionate' or *whatever the fuck you have in mind that makes hostage-taking not seem like a fucked up thing to do* is clearly not working.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Jun 27, 2009)

There are reasons there are such places as "bad neighbourhoods" or "ghettos" or "third world shit dive countries", and the reasons are probably not that the people who live in said shit dives were born crazy/stupid/evil. 

Come on let's face it, if these guys had actually made off with some goods and passed it around, they'd be hailed as modern day Robinhoods, hell they'd be better, because last I checked Robinhood wasn't a PIRATE. Yarrrrrgggghhhhhhh. 

And he wasn't black either...


----------



## damigu (Jun 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> The Thanksgiving turkey comparison fails INSTANTLY on the grounds that nowhere was threatening civilians with automatic rifles involved. For fuck's sake, sympathy is one thing - but being a blathering vagina solely for the sake of trying to seem more 'in touch with the world' or 'compassionate' or *whatever the fuck you have in mind that makes hostage-taking not seem like a fucked up thing to do* is clearly not working.
> 
> Jeff



i don't disagree.

but it's equally sick to set up vacations where the intention is to bait people just so the vacationers can kill them.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

Yeah, that is a bit fucked - hopefully someone credible gets involved before this becomes a more serious conflict.

Jeff


----------



## scottro202 (Jun 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> The Thanksgiving turkey comparison fails INSTANTLY on the grounds that nowhere was threatening civilians with automatic rifles involved. For fuck's sake, sympathy is one thing - but being a blathering vagina solely for the sake of trying to seem more 'in touch with the world' or 'compassionate' or *whatever the fuck you have in mind that makes hostage-taking not seem like a fucked up thing to do* is clearly not working.
> 
> Jeff


 
I never said it isn't a fucked up thing to do. I didn't say it justified or un-fucked-upified anything. I'm just saying that they are doing what they have to do for their families. 

that is, assuming these guys have families, and aren't greedy jerks who are tryin to get some easy money. 

I wasn't being a "blathering vagina" for the sake of anything. Like someone said, poverty breeds crime. I was just explaining that on a smaller level. that is all


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

They have guns and boats. I don't see how they have to take hostages to survive - they clearly have the means to either hunt or go someplace that has food, so this is several steps removed from stealing to feed a family.

Jeff


----------



## scottro202 (Jun 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> They have guns and boats. I don't see how they have to take hostages to survive - they clearly have the means to either hunt or go someplace that has food, so this is several steps removed from stealing to feed a family.
> 
> Jeff


 
that's a good point. they very well could just be greedy lazy bastards who wanna make a quick buck. 

but also, they weren't raised with western standards. I don't know if that could influence anything or not. 

I was watching a show on pirating today (Discovery Channel I think), anyways there was some guy talking about how people get into it. some guy says "hey, if you take some people hostage, you can make $1000 bucks", so they figure they go and do that, and get some easy money. and as far as hunting goes, is Somalia suitable for hunting? and they could have stolen the boat and guns (if hunting in somalia's good, yeah, they could use those for hunting)

but the thing is, we don't know these guys, we don't know why they truely do it, all we know is they do it, and it's wrong. that is all we can say for sure.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

Logic and respect aren't Western standards.

Jeff


----------



## Rick (Jun 27, 2009)

At least they shouldn't be.


----------



## damigu (Jun 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Logic and respect aren't Western standards.
> 
> Jeff



it's true. but i think the core of the problem is what i mentioned in the other post:

at this point, they've been in civil war and under the control of various warlords for 2 generations now, and the average somali only lives a little longer than that.

which means most of the somali population alive has never known a life apart from war and constant violence.

no one is around to teach them logic and respect.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

Logic doesn't need to be taught. It's why we as a species survived. If everything needed to be taught, we would never have gotten anywhere!

Jeff


----------



## damigu (Jun 27, 2009)

the human species survived and spread because we are the best killers around.

watching both humans and other primates, it is pretty clear that it is in the human instinct to control territory and subordinates via violence and killing.

the logic to *NOT* behave that way does have to be taught, since that is our innate behavior.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

Utter wank. There are plenty of other closely-related animals (that don't spend all their time killing things but have developed tools, communication, and social structure), we're certainly not the best killers around without logic (which wasn't developed as an attack but a defense mechanism - humans haven't been at the top of the food chain forever), and violence is not always necessary to control territory. Further, mankind has a long history of moving about, as agriculture didn't start working too well until fairly recently in the history of vaguely-intelligent animals, so defending territory wasn't as much of an issue until then. Finally, killing other humans was much less beneficial than killing members of other species, as humans were more likely to share similar genes and thus want to preserve each other. I see no reason to believe that you're able to back any of this up.

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> They have guns and boats. I don't see how they have to take hostages to survive - they clearly have the means to either hunt or go someplace that has food, so this is several steps removed from stealing to feed a family.
> 
> Jeff



that's exactly it, you _don't_ know what they are going through, therefore detailing what they *should* be doing is completely pointless and irrelevant because you will never be in that situation and thus you _don't_ know what you would do in that situation.



JBroll said:


> Logic doesn't need to be taught. It's why we as a species survived. If everything needed to be taught, we would never have gotten anywhere!
> 
> Jeff



no, we survived on our survival instincts - to do what's necessary to survive. when pushed I cannot say what I would not do to keep my family alive. humans have always done what's necessary to survive and this is no different. I'm not condoning their acts at all, what I am saying though that is you applying your values and "logic" to their situation is entirely futile.


----------



## damigu (Jun 27, 2009)

almost all of human history backs up what i said. i think that is pretty plain for all to see.
and, again, it is consistent with how other patriarchal primates behave in the wild.

the higher reasoning that our brains afford us is what allows us to see folly in killing and hopefully to try and find a better way. but obviously that hasn't prevented us from waging war at some level or other for basically the entire history of humanity.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2009)

damigu said:


> the higher reasoning that our brains afford us is what allows us to see folly in killing and hopefully to try and find a better way. but obviously that hasn't prevented us from waging war at some level or other for basically the entire history of humanity.



this is basically what we've been saying the whole time and it keeps getting ignored. higher reasoning goes out the window when you're looking out for yourself and your own against the odds.


----------



## Swippity Swappity (Jun 27, 2009)

It is kinda obvious, looking at it, that this thread seems to have tried really hard to reason whether killing pirates is right, wrong, or whatever, but that argument just doesn't make much sense (I, admittedly, couldn't be jewed into reading the whole thread, so I am making an assumption.).

It really all comes down to one of the simplest concepts: cause and effect. Assuming _God_ doesn't give a shit about what we do in most cases (He obviously doesn't considering the atrocities that have occurred in this world and the utter lack of fairness.), there really isn't a right or wrong way to do things: just the way that suits you. If you wanna go kill people, by all means, do it, but if they kill you because you got too close, well sorry. If ya need to get food for your family, do whatever you want to get it, but if somebody else punishes you for it, regardless of the reasons for your actions, that is just how life happened to be handed to you. If you want to go rob a jewelry store, go do it: it isn't necessarily wrong, just against the will of other people. I'll reiterate, there isn't a set wrong way to do things, just a ways that either makes you a target or more vulnerable to other human beings. That is why we have formed morals: to keep us from doing needlessly dangerous things by pissing off our strongest enemy, other humans. 

If you steal from or kill somebody, either they or somebody who had some sort of bond (Either chemical or material.) will want to steal from or kill you (Assuming they can figure out who you are. Hehe.), but if you help somebody and treat others _fairly_, you put yourself at an advantage in the long run considering they are much more likely to want to return the favor. Most people do a certain amount of lying, stealing, and killing with a decent balance of _kindness_ to put themselves in their comfortable _risk to safety_ range. The good thing is, you are much less likely to have a fatal overdose on the _safety_ area than the _risk_ area, and both can give high rewards in life. It really just comes down to a person's personality makeup for them to decide if something is right or wrong: they may take strange risks or act in ways that others seem unnecessary or eccentric, but if it makes them feel good, that is really all that matters for them (That is why we have most of our serial killers. They don't need to do that, but it sets off the reward centers in their brain.).

(Now that I've reiterated my same point about 5 times, haha.)

So in the end, killing pirates isn't a bad thing to do if ya can get away with it and enjoy it. It is a bit of an unnecessary risk, but if it sets off the reward centers of your brain and your mind, that is all that matters. Some people will love killing pirates, some people will find it repulsive, and others don't give a shit.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Jun 27, 2009)

I have no respect for the pirates in the slightest, but the kind of people who'd pay to get the chance to kill some random people seem to me pretty screwed up...


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 27, 2009)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> I have no respect for the pirates in the slightest, but the kind of people who'd pay to get the chance to kill some random people seem to me pretty screwed up...


Profound irony exists within (your signature)


----------



## silentrage (Jun 27, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Profound irony exists within (your signature)


zing!


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

Scar Symmetry... first, unless you simply do not believe in some idea of right and wrong independent of circumstances, you really can't keep going with this. If you're going to defend *hostage-taking* with people that have the means to feed their families in a way that doesn't require *hostage-taking*, it really doesn't matter how much we know about what *hostage-takers* are going through - you've just become such a massively-skewed cultural relativist that practically *anything* is defensible. Second, logic *is* a huge part of what we think of as our survival instincts.

Damigu... first, some of recorded human history (which is far from all of human history) backs you up on the assertion that we kill things... but that's far from what you claimed, which still stands about as well as a ragdoll. Second, what stops us from killing others isn't necessarily higher reasoning - empathy and identification with others in the species have a great deal to do with that.

These simply cannot be people who are just frolicking off the coast oblivious to the realization that they're pointing guns at people not even indirectly responsible for their hardships. 

Jeff


----------



## damigu (Jun 27, 2009)

"what stops us from killing"???

when did we stop killing?

the only reason we have stopped killing as individuals is because the developed world has infrastructure in place for other people (armies) to do it on our behalf.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

Wow, way to take five words out of context and miss the point entirely.

Before armies there were social structures (in pre-human ancestors) that stopped members of a tribe from killing each other. Even before that, since killing took valuable resources for questionable benefits it wasn't like we had a pre-firearms OK Corral every time two monkeys met.

Jeff


----------



## damigu (Jun 27, 2009)

i don't understand how your point is different than mine.

we're both saying that one group of people is always trying to kill another and that it is simply a part of human nature.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

Erm... not really.

I'm saying that taking hostages rather than using resources like guns and boats to feed a family in a way that *doesn't* involve terrorizing innocents is indefensible.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Jun 27, 2009)

Nothing is indefensible, OJ? 

Now I'm just trying to distract you, lol.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2009)

I don't follow what you're saying. Is there a typo up there somewhere?

Jeff


----------



## vortex_infinium (Jun 27, 2009)

Has anyone else seen that episode of South Park where Eric wants to be a pirate and gets a bunch of people to go be pirates in Somalia?

That's what this thread reminded me of.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 27, 2009)

Except that episode was freakin hilarious, lol.


----------



## MorbidTravis (Jun 28, 2009)

I'm not gonna lie, if they included stinger missles id think about it. just the whole killing someone thing isnt too pleasing.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 28, 2009)

You can be comforted by the fact that certain members' conjectures about these pirates' justifications (as far as 'protecting their families surviving in a war-stricken environment while not being greedy thugs', at least) are highly questionable, since I guess now would be a fun time to pull that gem out...

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 28, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Scar Symmetry... first, unless you simply do not believe in some idea of right and wrong independent of circumstances, you really can't keep going with this. If you're going to defend *hostage-taking* with people that have the means to feed their families in a way that doesn't require *hostage-taking*, it really doesn't matter how much we know about what *hostage-takers* are going through - you've just become such a massively-skewed cultural relativist that practically *anything* is defensible. Second, logic *is* a huge part of what we think of as our survival instincts.
> 
> Damigu... first, some of recorded human history (which is far from all of human history) backs you up on the assertion that we kill things... but that's far from what you claimed, which still stands about as well as a ragdoll. Second, what stops us from killing others isn't necessarily higher reasoning - empathy and identification with others in the species have a great deal to do with that.
> 
> ...



I like how whenever you're faced with a compelling argument the only thing you can say is that I've run out of steam and that what I'm saying is not 'defensible'.

what I've said is entirely defensible, you're just not listening to my point. you keep reiterating the same point without countering my point which makes me question if you're even reading my posts at all.

talking about the hardships of third world countries in a moral context is pretty much a joke, but whatever I'm done pushing my point because you're not going to listen whatever I say.

thanks for the rep.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 28, 2009)

The counter to your point is that you're justifying actions so perverse and misguided by a faulty line of reasoning (as in 'leads to immediate contradictions', not 'I arbitrarily dislike you and everything you say' as some impressions might be) that could excuse simply unspeakable behavior. 

Keep in mind that I was ignoring the actual circumstances of their 'hardships' (as in the article linked above, detailing the kinds of hostage situations and ransom payouts in question and the unusual absence of mention of family men driven to their breaking point like we'd see in made-for-TV movies) and conceding that to you without question. 

Also notice that I didn't keep as a central point of the argument that people with guns and ships who are supposedly 'trying to feed themselves and their families' are taking hostages rather than spending that time defending the waters that were previously sustaining their communities, a far easier role to defend - and one that would benefit far more people without bringing huge risk to innocents and expense to their families and employers.

In addition, your accusations of 'not knowing what they're going through' fall laughably given your own misguided, overly-optimistic assumptions. If that is so important, you've also conveniently left out what the families of numerous hostages go through knowing that in faraway seas their loved ones are being held at gunpoint - if hardship can apparently excuse so much, we have a situation that is so incredibly no-win that we could call it American democracy.

Finally, your argument is only 'compelling' and 'defensible' if I've already agreed to throw out any remotely objective standard of morality, and you're shrugging off the bulk of what I'm saying by pretending that I'm just saying 'you've run out of steam, you indefensible clod!' without justification. This is not the first time such fallacies have been made, and I no longer can think that you actually understand what I'm saying unless it magically coincides with some imaginary entity you happen to feel like arguing with.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jun 28, 2009)

People in this thread are talking about personal responsibility to feed a family and shit...how about NOT FUCKING BREEDING if you can't feed yourself? That's what I don't understand, starving people with like 5 kids. Do they not have fancy birth control methods down there, like pulling out? I know shit happens, but maybe some education about birth control and handing it out might be a better solution. If you can't feed the current population, don't increase it. If they won't use it based on religious grounds, then fuck them, they've done it to themselves.

And for the record if I had money to burn and the balls to put myself in danger I'd totally go on a trip like this  As it stands I'm saving up for the Viking resort


----------



## silentrage (Jun 28, 2009)

Seeing as how it's clear that no one in here will be persuaded by anyone else, let's just call it a day and move on?


----------



## mnemonic (Jun 28, 2009)

JBroll said:


> highly questionable



pretty much that link.



also, i'm sure not the entire country of Somalia are all pirates? looking at the wiki page for somalia, (not the best source i know, but its better than just guessing like i'm sure alot of people in this thread are doing) its not a country filled with mud huts and people with guns. they have several large cities, heres a picture of a shopping mall in Hargeisa







and according to the page, 



> Hargeisa is the financial hub to many entrepreneurial industries ranging from food processing, gem stonecutters, construction, retail, import and export, Internet cafes, and companies that process remittances from relatives abroad who send money. Some families have moved back to the city, living in mansions in the hills during the summer.
> 
> Hargeisa is also a safe city with very little crime which has boosted street trading. One will find along the main streets of the city centre numerous bureau de change with stacks of local and foreign currencies in the open and not locked away[citation needed]. One will also find female second hand gold traders selling their gold on the streets out in the open without fear of theft[citation needed]. Organised crime is virtually unheard of.



so its not like there are no other options in somalia other than killing people and holding people hostage.



the way i see it, (especially after reading that article posted by jbroll) these pirates take a big risk that could involve them being killed. they still willingly take this risk so i dont see why people complain when they do get killed. its not like these rich russians are going to shore and killing people on the beach and raiding towns, they wait for the pirates to attack them before they fight back. its not like you feel bad for, and try to help the guy robbing you at gun point on the street when you have the means to fight back.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 28, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> People in this thread are talking about personal responsibility to feed a family and shit...how about NOT FUCKING BREEDING if you can't feed yourself? That's what I don't understand, starving people with like 5 kids. Do they not have fancy birth control methods down there, like pulling out? I know shit happens, but maybe some education about birth control and handing it out might be a better solution. If you can't feed the current population, don't increase it. If they won't use it based on religious grounds, then fuck them, they've done it to themselves.


I don't think anyone could have crafted a better justification for buttsecks if they tried, JJ.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 28, 2009)

So if they're not educated enough to use birth control, or are too religious to use it, then whose fault is it?


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Jun 28, 2009)

SOD_Nightmare said:


> (I, admittedly, couldn't be jewed into reading the whole thread, so I am making an assumption.)



double fail. i for one am not jewish, but i see little things like this go unnoticed on forums far too often and a lot of people do not appreciate it. this isn't 4chan.

reading through this thread goes to show we aren't even close to being civilized yet. this whole thread has been about people trying to sway other people's opinion on whether or not what the pirates can be justified. blah blah blah. governments usually do not step in until it is costing them enough money/power. and then... they come in more forceful and violent than the criminals did. the world is like, backasswards.


----------



## scottro202 (Jun 29, 2009)

silentrage said:


> So if they're not educated enough to use birth control, or are too religious to use it, then whose fault is it?



well, it's nobody's fault if their not educated, but if their too religious AND educated then it's their fault for following logic created centuries ago. 

that being said, no matter how religious or uneducated they may be, they should (I truly hope they do) know this:
if you have sex, you get babies. 
if they can't keep it in their pants (and know they can't support a kid), then it's their fault.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 29, 2009)

Please don't assume what people who have nothing in common with you should or should not know, even people in modernized nations believe that pulling out, safe days or certain sexual positions are effective forms of birth control.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 29, 2009)

Again, these aren't people living in straw huts who would consider a spork to be advanced technology. 

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Jun 29, 2009)

Ok, I just tend to feel sorry if these people are too stupid/backwards/gullible/uncivilized to make their lives better, seeing as how we all have our own views on this matter which are evidently engraved in stone, I digress.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jun 29, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Please don't assume what people who have nothing in common with you should or should not know, even people in modernized nations believe that pulling out, safe days or certain sexual positions are effective forms of birth control.



It might not solve the whole problem, but why should we be held accountable (being taken hostage, ransomed, etc) for the ignorance of someone else? And pulling out might not be an "effective" form of birth control, but it's a bit better than blowing a batch inside a chick every time, and it's also free


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2009)

JBroll said:


> The counter to your point is that you're justifying actions so perverse and misguided by a faulty line of reasoning (as in 'leads to immediate contradictions', not 'I arbitrarily dislike you and everything you say' as some impressions might be) that could excuse simply unspeakable behavior.
> 
> Keep in mind that I was ignoring the actual circumstances of their 'hardships' (as in the article linked above, detailing the kinds of hostage situations and ransom payouts in question and the unusual absence of mention of family men driven to their breaking point like we'd see in made-for-TV movies) and conceding that to you without question.
> 
> ...



oh I understand alright, but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm 'misguided'. other people are allowed to have their own opinions without you trying to ridicule them you know. less of that please.

that's me done with this petty argument anyway.


----------



## silentrage (Jun 29, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> It might not solve the whole problem, but why should we be held accountable (being taken hostage, ransomed, etc) for the ignorance of someone else? And pulling out might not be an "effective" form of birth control, but it's a bit better than blowing a batch inside a chick every time, and it's also free



Grrr, stop confusing my sympathy for the pirates for my endorsement of their hostage taking. I'm sympathetic to everyone on earth, doesn't mean I support everything everyone does.


----------



## DDDorian (Jun 29, 2009)

These guys very rarely go in with the intention of actually killing anyone. They forcibly take hostages, wait around and then extort (insert GREEDY CAPITALIST OLIGARCH here) for millions of dollars. Modern-day piracy is nothing more than a militant take on pan-handling and a colossal pain in the arse. If you think there's some huge moral dilemma for a lot of these guys about making relatively good money for playing mall-cop to a bunch of hapless innocents then you're deluded.

As for the birth rate issue, it's often a matter of necessity - the more kids you have, the more family members there are to put to work.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 29, 2009)

DDDorian said:


> As for the birth rate issue, it's often a matter of necessity - the more kids you have, the more family members there are to put to work.



 Oh wow, did that ever backfire on them.


----------



## Rick (Jun 29, 2009)

DDDorian said:


> As for the birth rate issue, it's often a matter of necessity - the more kids you have, the more pirates there are to put to work.



In this case.


----------



## Koshchei (Jul 2, 2009)

I hope that when the Russians leave the plane, they are arrested for mass-murder and extradited to Somalia, where they will likely be fed feet-first through a tree chipper.

I don't agree AT ALL with the Somalian pirates, but when you're starving to death, have a life expectancy of 30 years, and don't find some way to feed your family or they'll die, you can probably rationalize just about anything as a necessary means. 

The logic goes something like: 

1) You're desperate.
2) Nobody with the means to help you gives a shit about you or will lift a finger to help.
3) Take what you need from those with the means to help but won't, to help yourself and your family (1+2)

The Nouveau Ruskiys, on the other hand, are a bunch of low-life psychopath cowboys who got wealthy by stealing from the other peasants when the USSR fell, have progressed past blowing away endangered species, and now want to go on a human safari. There's no sane or rational argument to justify their actions. They know better, and aren't doing it for any other reason than because they can - it's the moral equivalent of beating your wife with a bag of door-knobs because you're bigger and stronger than she is, and you know that she'll cover for you at the hospital if she survives the beating by saying she fell or some other stupid shit.

Fuck them, and fuck the diseased society that gave birth to them.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 2, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> when you're starving to death, have a life expectancy of 30 years, and don't find some way to feed your family or they'll die, you can probably rationalize just about anything as a necessary means.
> 
> The logic goes something like:
> 
> ...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 2, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> I hope that when the Russians leave the plane, they are arrested for mass-murder and extradited to Somalia, where they will likely be fed feet-first through a tree chipper



Why? Because they killed a bunch of assholes who tried to take them hostage?


----------



## Koshchei (Jul 2, 2009)

I think you answered your own question there. Now, it's my turn again: Is it somehow not murder if you provoke somebody to attack you so that you can use it as an excuse to kill them?

"Thay'r Headed right fer us, Dmitri-Bob!"


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 2, 2009)

Baiting them into it doesn't make it any less of self defense. Driving your boat around doesn't give someone the legal right to attack you, but having someone try to take you hostage who's armed DOES give you the legal right to defend yourself. I can walk down the street acting like a super tough douche bag and bump into people, doesn't give them the legal right to kidnap me or assault me in any way.


----------



## Koshchei (Jul 2, 2009)

Your example stinks. I think a better one would be chumming the water off the great barrier reef, and getting all surprised when a great white shark turns up.

Your understanding of the law also stinks:

If I break into your house with the intention of stealing all your pretty seven strings, and you catch me, you do not have carte blanche to do to me whatever you please. You can use REASONABLE FORCE to restrain me until the police arrive, or you can chase me away and then make a full report to the police. You may not break both my legs unless you want to do some serious jail time. You may not kill me, either. 

Now, let's use the example from the article: If you set up the perfect honey pot of a house, filled to the brim with everything a robber could ever want, and then charge a whole bunch of rich maniacs a lot of $$ to hide behind the sofa with shotguns and AK-47s, so that they can blow the first person who crawls through the window away, you're probably never going to see the light of day again, and neither are they, as what they've just committed, and you've aided, abetted, and provided material support for, is what we call premeditated murder.

See where I'm going with this?

Now, say, you provide a bunch of rich yobbos with a luxurous yacht and enough fire-power to sink a battleship, and set them loose in the territorial waters of another country so that they can blow away the first Coast Guard patrol boat that tries to detain them, what do you call that? Diplomatic Incident? Act of war? 

Lastly, let's take your boat full of rich trigger-happy loons and set them loose in dangerous waters that have been used as a dumping ground for toxic waste by other countries, and they manage to scrag a few boats full of pirates. What happens when this act escalates things, so that the pirates aren't merely taking the ships hostage anymore, but are firing Exocet missiles at them and sinking them? 

Going back a step, to the Russians with the bazookas, it doesn't make any difference to them if the approaching boat is pirates or coast guard. Shit, Somalia's so poor that you probably can't tell them apart anyway, and you certainly aren't going to let them get close enough to find out, especially if you're illegally there, armed to the tits with guns, rockets, and masses of paperwork detailing your plans to murder a bunch of their people.

The best solution here is to make every effort to stop the piracy, which is fundamentally DIFFERENT from going pirate hunting (be vewy vewy quiet). This can be done by increasing patrols, increasing the number of security personnel on ships travelling that area, etc. The point is deterrence, not outright provocation and pointless bloodshed.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 2, 2009)

A typical robber doesn't carry a machine gun. If a robber breaks into your house regardless of what you own, he has a gun drawn, you happen to have a shotgun, you can shoot him. If you believe your life is in danger, you are entitled to protect it. I once went to court to charge someone with assault after _I_ had hit _him_ in the head with a shovel, and the judge straight up told him that I could have killed him, his EXACT words, because he would not leave my property, was advancing on me, and was a lot bigger than me so it was a reasonable expectation that my life was in danger.

EDIT: Also, it's not a reasonable expectation that your life is in danger if a Coast Guard tries to detain you, and pirates don't have the force of law on their side either. Pirates are there for the sole purpose of kidnapping you which could end with you dead.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 3, 2009)

Again, these pirates are greedy swine living off of easy money rather than using the same resources to improve life for everyone by fixing the problems that supposedly led them to piracy. They're netting six and seven digits easily, causing problems when they return home, and justifying what they do with "Oh, the bad people over there are fishing illegally and dumping in our waters!" but oddly refusing to actually fix that problem.

Jeff


----------



## damigu (Jul 3, 2009)

^^ i still fail to see how that justifies taking a luxury cruise where the goal is hunting humans.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 3, 2009)

I wouldn't call it hunting, so much as trolling. They aren't going to attack someone unless they get attacked first. Even if that's their main goal, doesn't make it anything more than self defense. Might even have a positive effect of making the pirates think twice about attacking ships in the area.


----------



## damigu (Jul 3, 2009)

that's bullshit.
if using a duck decoy or deer pheromones to lure and kill ducks/deer is called "hunting" then using a boat decoy to lure and kill pirates is equally hunting.

it isn't even a matter of enforcement/deterrence. if it were about that, then the cruise people would seek money from the steamship lines (the companies most effected) instead of catering to a few wealthy elite private individuals.
as a deterrent, it won't work. the number of people who go on $6k+ per day vacations is not high, so it's not like these people will fill the waters with patrolling boats. and if you went to the hood and shot a few gang bangers, do you really think that would prevent gang banging? neither will this prevent piracy in the slightest. so that's not a valid argument for bloodsport.

it is about nothing more than an excuse to allow wealthy people to engage human hunting, and for the owners to turn a significant profit on it. don't make it sound like it is anything beyond that.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 3, 2009)

You're making it sound like they're killing innocent people. They're killing assholes who kidnap and potentially kill their victims. These pirates are human, and should know the difference between right and wrong, if you want to argue it from a moral standpoint.


----------



## SnowfaLL (Jul 3, 2009)

probably been said somewhere in the thread, but the Southpark episode based on this is hillarious. lol


----------



## mnemonic (Jul 3, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> Your example stinks. I think a better one would be chumming the water off the great barrier reef, and getting all surprised when a great white shark turns up.



are you comparing the natural instincts of animals to the conscious actions of greedy pirates?

his example fitted better tbh.



Koshchei said:


> Your understanding of the law also stinks:
> 
> If I break into your house with the intention of stealing all your pretty seven strings, and you catch me, you do not have carte blanche to do to me whatever you please. You can use REASONABLE FORCE to restrain me until the police arrive, or you can chase me away and then make a full report to the police. You may not break both my legs unless you want to do some serious jail time. *You may not kill me*, either.



depends where you live tbh.

for example, alot of states in the US, you'd be fully justified for killing an intruder in your home if you felt like your life was endangered.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 3, 2009)

damigu said:


> ^^ i still fail to see how that justifies taking a luxury cruise where the goal is hunting humans.



I didn't say it did, and actually said that I hoped someone credible got involved before things got too out of hand - guys, there's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking both 'sides' of a conflict are idiots...

The entirety of my argument was that sympathy for these 'people' (if you'll even call them that) is misguided and should be redirected to someone who actually deserves it (not because I arbitrarily dislike Scar Symmetry but because the justifications for their actions are relying on inaccurate information and faulty logic), and as usual I have no problem with thinking the pirates *and* the pirate-hunters are cunts.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 3, 2009)

I plead indifference  It doesn't effect me either way, but if I were to root for someone, it would be the pirate hunters. I don't think it's the best idea in the world, but if you can make money doing something and it's not illegal, why not?


----------



## JBroll (Jul 3, 2009)

Koshchei, your understanding of the law is also inaccurate - many places (many of them outside the States, as far as I know) have a clear and well-known Castle Doctrine that gives explicit permission to a property occupant to completely fuck an intruder's shit up if there's reason to believe that there is danger to the property or the well-being of those legally in the property. 

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 3, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Koshchei, your understanding of the law is also inaccurate - many places (many of them outside the States, as far as I know) have a clear and well-known Castle Doctrine that gives explicit permission to a property occupant to completely fuck an intruder's shit up if there's reason to believe that there is danger to the property or the well-being of those legally in the property.
> 
> Jeff



Is that the text book explanation?


----------



## JBroll (Jul 3, 2009)

It is with "JBroll's Badass Personal Defense Textbook of Awesome"...

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Jul 3, 2009)

JBroll said:


> guys, there's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking both 'sides' of a conflict are idiots...
> 
> Jeff



That's the key to understanding conflicts really...


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jul 4, 2009)

Although the phrase "I'm goin' Pirate-a Huntin'" sounds supremely Badass, I think this sounds pretty dangerous. I should hope the yachts are Covered in Armour.



JBroll said:


> It is with "JBroll's Badass Personal Defense Textbook of Awesome"...
> 
> Jeff



"Because Yes, You *can* murder that hooker if you think she spiked your drink..."


----------



## damigu (Jul 4, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> You're making it sound like they're killing innocent people. They're killing assholes who kidnap and potentially kill their victims. These pirates are human, and should know the difference between right and wrong, if you want to argue it from a moral standpoint.



as far as i'm aware, the somali pirates haven't outright killed any hostages except during rescue attempts (where it isn't clear if they deliberately meant to kill the hostage or something went wrong during a firefight).

regardless of whether pirates do or don't kill their hostages, however, that doesn't give license for wealthy people to pay for the privilege to hunt/kill them. bloodsport is just plain sick and wrong regardless of who the chosen prey is.



JBroll said:


> I didn't say it did, and actually said that I hoped someone credible got involved before things got too out of hand - guys, there's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking both 'sides' of a conflict are idiots...



then there was a miscommunication between us, because i'm in total agreement with this sentiment.

i don't sympathize with the pirates. i just understand what drove them to it and believe i'd be equally tempted to do it in their place. but that doesn't really make it right or justified.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 4, 2009)

Why wouldn't you just take the same resources and protect the waters your family and community members want to live off? Getting rid of what supposedly 'drove them to it' is what we would see if these were people who had in mind any purpose other than just making ridiculous amounts of money waving guns around instead of doing anything useful.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 4, 2009)

damigu said:


> as far as i'm aware, the somali pirates haven't outright killed any hostages except during rescue attempts (where it isn't clear if they deliberately meant to kill the hostage or something went wrong during a firefight).



Doesn't absolve them of the guilt in those deaths though. If they hadn't kidnapped them and put them in that situation they'd be alive. 

I guess I'm just not a firm believer in the "sanctity of life" or whatever


----------



## damigu (Jul 4, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Doesn't absolve them of the guilt in those deaths though. If they hadn't kidnapped them and put them in that situation they'd be alive.
> 
> I guess I'm just not a firm believer in the "sanctity of life" or whatever



it doesn't absolve the pirates at all, but it also doesn't give rich people the right to get their rocks off by killing people who just happen to be easy to justify killing.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jul 4, 2009)

JBroll said:


> It is with "JBroll's Badass Personal Defense Textbook of Awesome"...
> 
> Jeff



How much are you charging for that book, Jeff? 

Also, if any of you bleeding hearts rooting for the pirates will put your money where your mouth is, I'll get a boat and my AK and go out hunting the pirate hunters, sound like a plan?



damigu said:


> it doesn't absolve the pirates at all, but it also doesn't give rich people the right to get their rocks off by killing people who just happen to be easy to justify killing.



There are a lot of people in this world that are easy to justify killing. I just can't justify wasting the ammo unless I'm getting paid to do it. 

*HINT HINT*


----------



## JBroll (Jul 5, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> How much are you charging for that book, Jeff?



Charging? With my Hard-On For Freedom? As soon as it's worth reading, it'll be free (CC Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike) and you'll just have another reason to buy me drinks.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jul 5, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Charging? With my Hard-On For Freedom? As soon as it's worth reading, it'll be free (CC Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike) and you'll just have another reason to buy me drinks.
> 
> Jeff



So, are you saying you'll send me a torrent link?


----------



## silentrage (Jul 5, 2009)

How do I put my money where my mouth is, grab a silenced USP, some scuba gear and go solid snake on rich-people-on-a-pirate-hunting-cruise?


----------



## JBroll (Jul 5, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> So, are you saying you'll send me a torrent link?



I'm saying you won't need one because I'll be giving it away for free myself, and you'll never need one because sale will be absolutely prohibited.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jul 6, 2009)

JBroll said:


> I'm saying you won't need one because I'll be giving it away for free myself, and you'll never need one because sale will be absolutely prohibited.
> 
> Jeff



So what you're saying, is, there's no digital version of this book.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 6, 2009)

There's no version at all yet, so technically that's true - but if it's somewhere near readable it'll only be available in digital form.

Jeff


----------



## Rick (Jul 6, 2009)

Every time I see him, I get another chapter of said book.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jul 6, 2009)

JBroll said:


> There's no version at all yet, so technically that's true - but if it's somewhere near readable it'll only be available in digital form.
> 
> Jeff



Knowing you it will not be legible to a very large portion of the American public... And this wouldn't be wholly a bad thing.


----------



## Koshchei (Jul 19, 2009)

mnemonic said:


> are you comparing the natural instincts of animals to the conscious actions of greedy pirates?



On Maslov's hierarchy of needs, people who don't have the physiological base covered are at the level of animals like wolves. They're not greedy, they're doing what they think they need to in order to survive. They do not have luxuries like free time or security to contemplate the morality or profitability of their actions. They just act, because if they don't, they die.

Greed and ambition are at the esteem level, which is four levels higher than Somalian pirates are capable of operating at. Most people in developed countries operate at this level, and are, as you and JJ demonstrate, not able to frame the problem without introducing personal prejudice stemming from your inability to understand what life is like when can't take things for granted, like breathing, food, water, and sleep.

You seem also to have the mistaken belief that somehow humans are elevated above other living organisms on this planet by sole virtue of the fact that we're members of homo sapiens sapiens. This is false. We are members of the animal kingdom, primates specifically, and have ancestors in common with everything from dogs to algae, if you go enough generations back.

Again, you do what you think you have to in order to survive long enough to propagate, even preying on your own kind. Our genes demand nothing less of us.


----------

