Hobby Ethics

"Cannibul" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:48:18 GMT, LtWolfe wrote:

Right. And I should be allowed to own my very own thermonuclear bomb
because I will be responsible with it.

As soon as you have the resources and abilities to build one,
this point becomes relevant.

"Jim" wrote in message
news.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 00:28:48 -0000, "Le Trôle"

LtWolfe does indeed have the right to own any kind
of aquarium fish or plant, even though there may be
some reason that he should not exercise that right.

It appears that PETA has found yet another unwitting stooge.

The US Constitution tells the Federal Government what it
may not do. The rest fall to the states. And the states do have
the right and responsibility to keep dangerous non-native animals
out of our lakes and streams.

There's no question that introducing exotic species
can harm the local environment, or that the guvmint
has a genuine need to enforce laws that prevent this.

But rights are not created by pieces of paper, and they
are not gifts of the state.

Individual human beings have rights.
States and Guvmints don't have rights, only powers.

As soon as you allow yourself to accept the idea that
'you have no right to do X' simply because exercising
that right has dangerous consequences, you lose it all.

PETA says you have no right to keep pets, and you
just agreed with them.

Isn't what county next to Kent?

Evan

Marksfish wrote:
Isn't what county next to Kent?

Ethics!!! (Got to inject some humour to this thread somewhere. Take a
look on a map of the UK and you will see what I mean).

That would go along with Thuthics and Wethics then

--
Don`t Worry, Be Happy

Sandy
--

E-Mail:-
Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk
IRC:- Sandyb in #rabble uk3.arcnet.vapor.com Port:6667
#Rabble Channel Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk/rabbled
ICQ : 41266150

That would go along with Thuthics and Wethics then

--
Don`t Worry, Be Happy

Sandy


They're the ones :-)

Mark

"Le Trôle" wrote in
:

There's no question that introducing exotic species
can harm the local environment, or that the guvmint
has a genuine need to enforce laws that prevent this.

But rights are not created by pieces of paper, and they
are not gifts of the state.

Individual human beings have rights.
States and Guvmints don't have rights, only powers.

As soon as you allow yourself to accept the idea that
'you have no right to do X' simply because exercising
that right has dangerous consequences, you lose it all.

I see. So, your whole quibble here is a semantic/philosophical quibble over
the word "right".

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

PETA says you have no right to keep pets, and you
just agreed with them.

I must have missed that part. *I* thought I was saying that you have no
right to knowingly endanger the ecosystem. Could you please explain my
point of view to me more fully?

~Empty


--
'You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it
kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other
till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains,
children, it's blood... blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may
be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.'
Spike

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

There's no question that introducing exotic species
can harm the local environment, or that the guvmint
has a genuine need to enforce laws that prevent this.

But rights are not created by pieces of paper, and they
are not gifts of the state.

Individual human beings have rights.
States and Guvmints don't have rights, only powers.

As soon as you allow yourself to accept the idea that
'you have no right to do X' simply because exercising
that right has dangerous consequences, you lose it all.

I see. So, your whole quibble here is a semantic/philosophical quibble
over
the word "right".

Nope. It's more a matter of teamwork. You make sweeping
asinine statements, and I provide the necessary clarifications.

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.

PETA says you have no right to keep pets, and you
just agreed with them.

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.

###############################################
# BEGIN FORGETFUL ZONE
###############################################
# The bottom line is that you have no "right" to make decisions
# regarding the Florida ecosystem, nor do you have any "right"
# to own any kind of aquarium fish or plant.
###############################################

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

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

"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.

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

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.

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.

In other words, mental masturbation.

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

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

Sure, whatever.

~Empty

--
'You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it
kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other
till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains,
children, it's blood... blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may
be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.'
Spike

"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]

Take this crap somewhere else.