Comments for en-gb 30 Thu 05 Mar 2015 03:44:54 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at ghostofsichuan i am sure most have just finished their chicken, beef or pork or even maybe some fish as they complain about whaling in Japan. Particular likes and dislikes single out others for behaviors we also have. The need for whale oil in lamps in the West devasted the whales. Native Alaskians still hunt whales as do other countries. The morality of tastebuds. Tue 19 Oct 2010 14:12:15 GMT+1 MangoChutney isn't it odd that people need to discuss the heavy hand of moderation ratgher than the issue at hand?/Mango Tue 19 Oct 2010 11:45:30 GMT+1 one step beyond Re post 29, I do not agree but that is what these blogs are for. I do not want to attack Ghostofsischuan but in another blog about multi-culturism they wrote -'The Muslims are available so they become the target to distract the public from their real enemies, the bankers and their political allies. Politicians will generally stoop top any level to save themselves. Never underestimate how low they can go. I believe there is some kind of history in Germany using this approach.'In essence it is the same as the offending post except instead of making the parallel with Japan's past they have made it with Germany's. Should that also be removed. I again say no, it stands on it's own and is factually accurate. This should not be taken to mean I agree with this or the other posting just that by removing it more problems are caused than letting people see it. Tue 19 Oct 2010 10:46:42 GMT+1 jr4412 simon-swede #29."Posters should take responsibility for what they themselves do, not blame the Moderators for applying the rules."while true, the moderation itself is very 'uneven' at times (unsurprising since the moderators are human too (at least that's the rumour I heard ;)).interesting reading, in this context: Tue 19 Oct 2010 10:45:25 GMT+1 jr4412 JaneBasingstoke #28."My personal experience is that all cultures appreciate nature.."but some have a (religious/spiritual) view which encourages exploitation whilst others don't. you only need to compare 'our' views ("..Old-Testament tradition brings to consciousness the concepts of subjugate, which implies that to cultivate & nurture the earth will lead to mutual happiness & contentment..") with those raised with Shintoism/Taoism ("a view of human beings as relatively unimportant, as simply a part of nature..") as their principal philosophy."..but most cultures can be criticised for flaws associated with their exploitation of nature."sadly, in today's world, this is unarguably true. Tue 19 Oct 2010 10:32:52 GMT+1 simon-swede Re 27: I disagree. It was simply because the author chose to do so in the specific way s/he did, that there was always a chance that it would be removed by the moderators. If it was so essential to disagree with the view articulated in post #1, the author of the second post could have easily done so in a way that did not breach the house rules. Posters should take responsibility for what they themselves do, not blame the Moderators for applying the rules. Tue 19 Oct 2010 10:17:31 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke @one step beyond #27Given ghostofsichuan's apparent Chinese background I don't find his complement of Japanese sensibilities offensive.My personal experience is that all cultures appreciate nature, but most cultures can be criticised for flaws associated with their exploitation of nature. Tue 19 Oct 2010 10:03:16 GMT+1 one step beyond Re post 25, the problem is the house rule can catch many posts. The 'offending post' in question was factually accurate, if a little historical, the item referred to was probably an event that happened over 70 years ago. I say probably but it could have been referring to more recent events.The comment was a rebuttal to the naive comment in post 1,'The Japanese have a reverence for nature that is unmatched in other cultures.' suggesting not all would agree with this sentiment. I for one have seen a lot more offensive comments left on this and other blogs. If I was pedantic I could argue post 1 is in itself offensive, but I prefer for others to see and respond to the arguments put forward. We are the poorer in this debate because we do not have the deleted post Tue 19 Oct 2010 09:34:33 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke @simon-swede #25The house rules don't exist in a vacuum. Their implementation needs discussing with reference to the forces they reflect, hopefully so that people posting here respect the mods. Hence the final paragraph of my #24. Tue 19 Oct 2010 08:20:58 GMT+1 simon-swede Jane at #24 (and others)Surely the onus is on those wishing to post comments here to comply with the House Rules? Where posters choose not to do so, they can hardly complain when their posts are removed. Tue 19 Oct 2010 06:40:49 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke @jr4412 #22"seem to remember ... good example, I think, why censorship 'works' -- it leaves us confused and without recourse"Yup. Hate censorship, and that's another good reason. @one step beyond #23Apologies. I misread your #20, before posting my #21. I stand by the content of my #21, but its tone is wrong when linked to your #20.However I would like to point out something. The fact that both jr4412 and I can remember seeing #2 last night means that it was subtle enough to survive initial moderation but was removed because A. N. Other complained to the mods. Subsequent comments suggest that A. N. Other is not interested in explaining their feelings to the rest of us.@jr4412 #22@one step beyond #23The BBC are horribly vulnerable to criticism. I can understand that the mods may have decided that censorship of #2 was the least worst option. Mon 18 Oct 2010 19:19:33 GMT+1 one step beyond Jane, post 21,as I said in my post 'It is perfectly proper for others, such as Jane to criticise it but it is a step down a slippery path for the post to be censored.'So to make clear I am agreeing it was right that you should feel able to criticise the post and did so. But it was wrong for the 'offending post' to be censored. I cannot remember the number of posts criticising other countries for their past mistakes/crimes (strangely enough many directed at Britain and the U.S.A.), however people should be allowed such expression. Others, as you did, can then criticise it. I think we both agree on this?In this particular case the comment was made in reference to what I would describe as an absurd statement that - 'The Japanese have a reverence for nature that is unmatched in other cultures.'I think it is correct to point out, as others have done, that this is not a universally held belief. There was no need to go back in history to show this but nor should such a comment have been censored. Mon 18 Oct 2010 18:15:55 GMT+1 jr4412 JaneBasingstoke #21.while I seem to remember it being a (slightly snide) comment on the 'ongoing tension between the two countries'. a good example, I think, why censorship 'works' -- it leaves us confused and without recourse. Mon 18 Oct 2010 17:26:20 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke @jr4412 #19That particular news story is hardly relevant to whether Japan shows respect for life, at least not in its current form. Instead it captures the tragic ongoing tension between the two countries.Unfortunately I can't remember the precise wording of #2. But I'm pretty sure it involved respect for life rather than just civil liberties of individuals taking boats into disputed waters.@one step beyond #20I don't like censorship in any form. If I have problems with a comment I will normally look at replying to it. Not replying to a comment that I had problems with, on the grounds of avoiding censorship-by-criticism, would in itself be a form of censorship. Where the original comment was sincere or worthwhile, such silence could potentially be seen as a form of disrespect, not engaging honestly with the author of the original comment. Mon 18 Oct 2010 16:45:42 GMT+1 one step beyond Re the comment 'The Japanese have a reverence for nature that is unmatched in other cultures.' I cannot understand why the post rebutting this by making reference to an event in the past has been removed (have to be careful with my wording as do not want this post referred)I can understand Jane's view point that it may be unfair to criticise a nation for something that happened in the past, but the reality is that such criticisms of a country's past behaviour are often made on BBC blogs and not removed. It is perfectly proper for others, such as Jane to criticise it but it is a step down a slippery path for the post to be censored.The removed past was factually accurate, it needs to be reinstated. Are we living in the UK or China (hope my post will not get removed because of that comment).Come on BBC this is disgraceful and I hope all who write on this blog make similar representations, otherwise another freedom has been lost Mon 18 Oct 2010 15:06:35 GMT+1 jr4412 JaneBasingstoke #18."The historical political situation to which bowmanthebard appeared to be referring.."I too read his comment beofre it disappeared, I thought he was referring to: Mon 18 Oct 2010 14:42:34 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke @PAWB46 #13@bowmanthebard #14I saw bowmanthebard's #2 post last night. I didn't report it, I was planning to reply to it instead.The historical political situation to which bowmanthebard appeared to be referring is one that also affected some European nations at the same time. It is not fair to judge a country's actions that took place when the country was under the control of political extremists who had used a mixture of lies and violence to take power. No nation is immune to such a situation. Tragically there have been more recent instances elsewhere in the world.Incidentally that doesn't stop constructive criticism of today's Japan, which, like every other country on the planet, gets some things right and some things wrong. Mon 18 Oct 2010 14:05:03 GMT+1 brucepotter I find it concerning that as balanced and experienced an observer as Richard Black seems very pessimistic about the possibilities for positive outcomes of the Nagoya biodiversity conference.It's also interesting that the biodiversity deniers are using exactly the same arguments against biodiversity conservation (on any scale larger than my personal garden plot evidently) that have been used by the climate change deniers. Fortunately for us, and desperately unfortunately for our 9 billion progeny in 2050, we -- believers and deniers alike -- will be mostly off the scene by the time the fruits of our futile and gridlocked debates ripen.I do find it curious and a bit frightening that most of the pundits for our future fail to deal with the idea that MASSIVE changes in the scale of human impacts on the natural world, resulting from a combination of numbers of people AND amount of resources used per capita, calls for FUNDAMENTAL RESTRUCTURING of mankind's stewardship of the planet. I think I'll go back to burning my daily trash production in a barrel in the backyard -- as we did when I was a boy. Mon 18 Oct 2010 12:35:30 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie Paper cranes are far easier on the eye than emperors in their new clothes. We made hundreds of green paper cranes (way back) on Green Day but they didn't bring good luck and only filled the recycle paper bins. Some kids found paper cranes very difficult to make and screwed up their attempts before finishing but unfortunately Martin Creed has the copyright for screwed up paper balls. However, one pack of all purpose cheap copy paper makes an awful lot of cranes. Why can't the IPCC keep it that simple? Perhaps we could all get folding and make alternative energy paper fire lighters, you know, the sort granny and grand dad used to make with folded and platted newspaper sheets. The alternative is to make those little origami birds that make your savings grow but that again would be a breach of copyright I expect. Mon 18 Oct 2010 11:16:47 GMT+1 WendyRainbow Love the idea of children making paper cranes, perhaps paper whales are more difficult to make. Mon 18 Oct 2010 08:40:29 GMT+1 bowmanthebard One mustn't speak ill of the host nation, apparently. Mon 18 Oct 2010 08:38:40 GMT+1 PAWB46 What is this? Freedom of speech or censorship of my posts #5 & 9 and # 2 & 3? Mon 18 Oct 2010 08:18:47 GMT+1 PAWB46 Before anybody jumps down my throat, I have to admit I am a committed conservationist and lover of wildlife. I personally own two wild-flower meadows, have planted over 200 trees in my arboretum and own a stretch of river and associated woodland which I maintain in good condition. It doesn't come cheap, is hard work and is a big committment.Other people just talk about doing things with other people's money. Mon 18 Oct 2010 08:02:38 GMT+1 PAWB46 Bring back the dinosaurs. Were we responsible for all that biodiversity loss as well?Aren't over 97% of all species that ever existed now extinct? We need scientists of the stature of Charles Darwin, not numpty "environmental scientists".We don't need politiicans like Japanese environment minister Matsumoto with "We are now close to a 'tipping point' - that is, we are about to reach a threshold beyond which biodiversity loss will become irreversible, and may cross that threshold in the next 10 years if we do not make proactive efforts for conserving biodiversity."Utter garbage! Now can somebody remind me, where have I heard about tipping points before?Scare tactics or what. Mon 18 Oct 2010 07:57:21 GMT+1 LabMunkey re: biodiversity loss.I don't think we'll ever get a solution to this problem (if it exists to the extent touted, which is not to say i think there isn't an issue, just that i'm a bit more, ahem, skeptical over the figures) on a global, or at least governmental level.This is not to say that governments cannot play their part. Targets can be given to councils/states/provinces etc etc for protecting habitat, species, reducing pollution, industrialisation etc etc and then extra cirricular grants/monies (for non essential programs- such as arts, social, national parks, communal farms etc) can be granted as a 'reward' for meeting such targets- it could be a nice incentive for local areas to take an active interest in their local environment.I think it's at this local, 'on the ground' level that 'we' can have the biggest impact. Community projects can do spectacular things when properly motivated- looking after habitat, reducing litter, identifying threatened species or actually getting a good idea of WHAT species we have in the first place (see my initial bracketted point).I think this would be FAR more effective than having some beaurocrats sitting around a table, wasting time, achieving nothing. As ever education is the key- get people to take pride and get involved in their surroundings, and the rest will fall into place naturally and the benefits would be for the environment as a whole, not just for biodiversity. Soemthing i think we can all agree would only be a good thing. Mon 18 Oct 2010 07:34:08 GMT+1 PAWB46 This post has been Removed Mon 18 Oct 2010 07:33:20 GMT+1 bettina This post has been Removed Mon 18 Oct 2010 06:59:37 GMT+1 bowmanthebard They're not so great with bluefin tuna either, are they?It's interesting to see how quickly such things are overlooked if you throw a big enough party and invite "the right people". Mon 18 Oct 2010 06:56:44 GMT+1 bettina This is pretty ironic, seeing what the Japanese government do to whales. I will never take it seriously until they honour the moratorium on whaling. Mon 18 Oct 2010 06:39:40 GMT+1 PAWB46 This post has been Removed Mon 18 Oct 2010 06:37:51 GMT+1 CanadianRockies Cranes. The real ones are a better symbol of the untold positive story of conservation. In North America we have two species. The famous whooping crane has been rescued from what some thought was certain extinction. Most populations of the more widespread sandhill crane, also severely reduced a century ago, have recovered long ago and are now thriving and expanding their ranges.Something is obviously going right for these cranes, in contrast to the universal 'extinction crisis' doomsday premise that this conference will be based on... a 'crisis' that, of course, needs massive funding, etc. P.S. #1. ghostofsichuan wrote:"The Japanese have a reverence for nature that is unmatched in other cultures."But aren't they supposed to be barbaric whale killers? Such a complicated world. Mon 18 Oct 2010 06:28:52 GMT+1 Dr Brian This post has been Removed Sun 17 Oct 2010 22:52:00 GMT+1 bowmanthebard This post has been Removed Sun 17 Oct 2010 21:09:39 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan Symoblism is important in Asian cultures. Thousands of origami cranes were dropped in Southeast Thailand as a message of peace to the Muslim separatist. In politics symbolism is someimes all you get. A wish for a better world from the people of Japan should be accepted and appreciated. The Japanese have a reverence for nature that is unmatched in other cultures. When an alternative fuel is developed things will get better and the economies will grow. Sun 17 Oct 2010 18:14:51 GMT+1