[OT:] Hobby Ethics
 

http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg

if that isn't clear enough....

http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks1.jpg

--

RedForeman ©®





"Le Trôle" wrote in message
...
"Empty" wrote in message
...
"Le Trôle" wrote in
:
"Empty" wrote in message
...
"Le Trôle" wrote in
:

I wish you'd just said so in the beginning- I could have dismissed
this as the mental masturbation it is.

As you normally do with things that you
neither respect, nor even understand.

No, I dismiss issues utterly beyond the scope of context and the
discussion at hand, which it is apparent yours is.

The context of this discussion was defined and confirmed
when you replied to my post. I didn't set the agenda, I merely
answered your reply to the original poster. I now know
you have a very selective memory, or else you'd recall the way
you jumped into this thread by foolishly pulling out various
Big Lists of Rights to demonstrate the absence of a Right to Keep Fish.

I merely pointed out the misconception of a Right being something
that's granted, as opposed to something that exists apart from any
declaration or other piece of paper.

*We* were discussing the legality of exotic fish and plants. *You* were
discussing nebulous philosophical semantics.

You answered LtWolfe by saying he had no Right to Keep Fish.
You made an asinine statement concerning the Constitution
that merely illustrated your own unwitting support for those
who would prevent you from even keeping a tadpole in a fruit jar.

I must have missed that part. *I* thought I was saying that you have
no right to knowingly endanger the ecosystem.

Nope. Below is an insertion of your previous comments, and
you make a clear distinction between some sort of dangerous
activity and owning any pets at all. If you can dance out of
your own words below, you'll be ready for Broadway.

Yes, I make that clear distinction. Yes, I say you have no "right" to
own
any form of pet.

Based upon what? Your feelings? And by the way, you are now
making your (un?)witting support for PETA as solid as you can get
without actually buying a kd lang album.

Remember, you made the orignal assertion of no Right to Keep Fish,
and you're repeating it again without those silly notions of "context",
so unless you're in the habit of making heart-felt but baseless noise,
you do indeed need to provide at least a smidgen of explanation.

The only reason you see any form of hypocrisy here is your willful
interpretation of the word "right" in a philosophical sense rather than
the legalistic one the context dictates.

So where have I called you a hypocrite? Is this what you usually do
when your own opinions are held up to scrutiny? Just make up stuff?
On the contrary, I haven't called you a hypocrite, I merely pointed out
both your demonstrated lack of reasoning and your unwillingness
to provide some sort of basis for the proclamation that you made.

In other words, mental masturbation.

Is it your morals or your impotence that holds you back?

Could you please explain my point of view to me more fully?

You are an extremely (un?)witting stooge of PETA.

Sure, whatever.

[insert wav file of hearty snicker]

[OT:] Hobby Ethics
 

So does PETA or any "animal rights" feel it's okay to own plants? Eat
baby plants? Yes, baby plant plants, so cute, so green, so helpless as
they look up at you as if to say "Get out of the way! You are blocking
my light source!"

Baby plants= seeds! Plant killers! All of you!

I'm just having a problem with saying animal life is more important
than another. This is am morality issue based upon something that
looks like us more and something we can identify, RATHER than the
respect and consideration of life.

We all have to eat something organic, so every human is guilty to some
degree.

I'm going to see if the Plantagon will get involved, we must do
something to save the baby plants. Free the plants now! Herbivores
suck! Owning cows is murder!

Come on, have a little fun:)

Regards,
Tom Barr

Hobby Ethics
 

I'm from Perth Australia,

We have a very fragile Freshwater system here.

There are only seven species of freshwater fish native to the Perth
waterways.

First Carp were introduced into the lakes so people would have something to
catch.

This upset the eco system and caused plagues of mesqitos.

So they (the government) introduced Gambusia (Mesquito fish) only to find
they prefer fish eggs to mesquito larvae.

I don't believe there is even a record of what we had in most of our lakes.

Then they introduced Trout and other fish into the rivers.

Now we have very tight controls over what fish we can import - but its a bit
late.

On my last trip to the Moore River I caught about 50 of the introduced
mesquito fish and two tadpoles.

All of these fish were introduced by government experts or approved by gov't
experts.

I think we folks in the Hobby do occassionally make mistakes - however our
mistakes are usually small and easily corrected. It really takes gov'ts or
gov't backing to truly destroy an environment.

However, I fully import the restrictions in place because I see the effects
every day.

I have heard lots of people complain that the Fisheries deprtment is useless
when it comes to processing requests for exemptions, but I have never been
knocked back and hence haven't found the rules restrictive at all.

Jim


Jim


Joseph wrote in message
...
I live in a state where many fresh water plants are illegal, e.g.
Anacharis and milfoil. There are also several species of aquatic
animals that are illegal, e.g. ghost shrimp, fresh water snails, and
killifish (a HUGE fine if your caught with killies).

I've been wrestling with the ethics of buying an illegal animal on
line (ghost shrimp), and wonder what other people think about this in
regards to both plants and animals.

Any thoughts?

Hobby Ethics
 

I believe in a hands off approach.
Leave nature alone long enough and things work out. Conserve what you
have now feircely and try to protect it.

Humans always try to control nature and this often back fires.
Some restoratiion and creation work in conservation is worthy, some is
not. Adding mosquito fish is a bad idea IMO. Few fish bioloigist would
argue otherwise.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Hobby Ethics
 

Simple, while you are concerned about your "rights" the government has
to consider the welfare of the all the people. You may detest drunk
driving laws, but those injured or killed or whose property gets
damaged would ask you to consider their "rights" to security for
property and life.

You are not the center of the world!

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:48:18 GMT, LtWolfe wrote:

I am well aware of the exotic problems in my current state of residence. Why do you seem so quick to
take away MY right? Because of what someone ELSE did? Why should I be punished for the acts of
others? Does that seem right? Besides, there are very few exotics doing well, compared to the
number in the hobby, and natives in FL. A lot of exotics are from fish farm releases (I'm sure YOU
don't buy from fish farms, right?). Bottom line, I am responsible for MY actions. YOU are responsible
for YOUR actions. Let's keep it like that okay? (or rather, get it back like that).

LtWolfe

"Toni" wrote in
hlink.net:


"LtWolfe" wrote in message
. ..
No state or government has the right to interfere in a person's
private
business, unless it DIRECTLY
harms another INDIVIDUAL. God, what is this country coming to? FIGHT
THE
OPRESSION!



I live in a land infested with Muscovy Ducks, toxic Bufo Toads, and
Melaleuca trees are soaking up my Everglades.... all non natives, all
introduced by folks who thought they knew better.

Hobby Ethics
 

Government mistakes are just people mistakes. I have made quite a few
in my life time. I do seem to remember many years ago an alligator
problem in the sewers of NYC I believe brought on my dumping pet
alligators down the toilet.


On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:43:09 +0800, "Jim Morcombe"
wrote:

I'm from Perth Australia,

We have a very fragile Freshwater system here.

There are only seven species of freshwater fish native to the Perth
waterways.

First Carp were introduced into the lakes so people would have something to
catch.

This upset the eco system and caused plagues of mesqitos.

So they (the government) introduced Gambusia (Mesquito fish) only to find
they prefer fish eggs to mesquito larvae.

I don't believe there is even a record of what we had in most of our lakes.

Then they introduced Trout and other fish into the rivers.

Now we have very tight controls over what fish we can import - but its a bit
late.

On my last trip to the Moore River I caught about 50 of the introduced
mesquito fish and two tadpoles.

All of these fish were introduced by government experts or approved by gov't
experts.

I think we folks in the Hobby do occassionally make mistakes - however our
mistakes are usually small and easily corrected. It really takes gov'ts or
gov't backing to truly destroy an environment.

However, I fully import the restrictions in place because I see the effects
every day.

I have heard lots of people complain that the Fisheries deprtment is useless
when it comes to processing requests for exemptions, but I have never been
knocked back and hence haven't found the rules restrictive at all.

Jim


Jim


Joseph wrote in message
.. .
I live in a state where many fresh water plants are illegal, e.g.
Anacharis and milfoil. There are also several species of aquatic
animals that are illegal, e.g. ghost shrimp, fresh water snails, and
killifish (a HUGE fine if your caught with killies).

I've been wrestling with the ethics of buying an illegal animal on
line (ghost shrimp), and wonder what other people think about this in
regards to both plants and animals.

Any thoughts?

Hobby Ethics
 

We are not discussing "hands off," rather the introduction of alien
fish to a native habitat or at least the potential. I can appreciate
the complaint of too much government intervention, but the other side
is chaos. We do have to drive on the proper side of the divider. We
do not complain of this law. The value is obvious. The question of
personal choice of pets is another mater. A older woman visiting a
woman that kept a lion as a pet, was mauled to death within the last
month. Then there are those pet owners that ador the Pit Bulls.

I have my own "pet" peaves, but do understand those that represent us
must balance the "rights of the individual" against the good of all.
I also accept that those trying to protect us make their own mistakes.

Democracy may not be the best form of government, but it is the best
form we know as of now.

On 7 Jan 2004 08:49:21 -0800,
) wrote:

I believe in a hands off approach.
Leave nature alone long enough and things work out. Conserve what you
have now feircely and try to protect it.

Humans always try to control nature and this often back fires.
Some restoratiion and creation work in conservation is worthy, some is
not. Adding mosquito fish is a bad idea IMO. Few fish bioloigist would
argue otherwise.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Hobby Ethics
 

Dick wrote:
Government mistakes are just people mistakes. I have made quite a few
in my life time. I do seem to remember many years ago an alligator
problem in the sewers of NYC I believe brought on my dumping pet
alligators down the toilet.

Urban myth.
--
~misfit~

Hobby Ethics
 

~misfit~ wrote in message
...
Dick wrote:
Government mistakes are just people mistakes. I have made quite a few
in my life time. I do seem to remember many years ago an alligator
problem in the sewers of NYC I believe brought on my dumping pet
alligators down the toilet.

Urban myth.

WHAT!?!? NO 80-FOOT ALBINO ALLIGATORS!?!?

Hobby Ethics
 

No, but there are massive Oscars (nearly as deadly) living in
the inland canals of Florida. But apparently thems good eatin'
http://www.floridafisheries.com/fish...ive.html#oscar

WHAT!?!? NO 80-FOOT ALBINO ALLIGATORS!?!?