Super User Lund Explorer Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 It's an issue of our own standards that we live by. Not what others tell us is right and wrong. It is an issue of obeying a written law. Everyone has the choice to either live by those laws or join those who don't. If someone decides to break the law, they are no better or worse than anyone else who breaks another law. The vast majority have shown that they would break this hypothetical law. Are there any other laws that the majority are willing to break? Perhaps we should all agree to trespass on other people's private property to fish their ponds. Should we toss out creel or size limits? When you don't put human emotions into the subject, it becomes much easier to decide the difference between right and wrong. Funny how this forum's rules include a statement regarding that very concept. I'll bet the moderators expect us to follow that rule! 1 Quote
Fisher-O-men Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Is it morally right to obey unjust laws? 3 Quote
blckshirt98 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 There's common sense laws and there's stupid laws. Killing all "invasive" fish in the CA Delta is a beyond stupid law. 1 Quote
Super User Senko lover Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 Okay, I'm not an expert in these matters but the results of this poll are disturbing. So some of you think that if you ignore those rules, it's going to put you in better standing with the government when you try to get them repealed? Sheesh, if you don't respect the rules, they're not going to respect your appeals to restore catch and release policies. If you won't kill bass, find a small pond or another body of water that doesn't have these rules. Don't destroy your chances of ever being able to throw fish back again. A law is a law, stupid or not. 1 Quote
hatrix Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Is it morally right to obey unjust laws? It kinda is. That was what this country was about originally. To say if you break a law you are the same to someone who breaks any other law is crazy. Everyone on here has broken laws and most on a regular basis. I bet everyone was speeding at one point this week or jaywalking or didn't wear a seat belt ect. You can do what you want if it was a real law of it bothered you so. Who is really going to see you throw a fish back anyways. I am not sayin my go out and do anything you want but let's be realistic. No one will ever know. Just like no one will ever know like no one knows you didn't stop for 3 seconds this morning at that stop sign. It was still illegal and you did it any ways. Before anyone says they don't do stuff like I mentioned above I am going to call BS and if by chance you happen to be the perfect person you are 1 in a million. Quote
hatrix Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Okay, I'm not an expert in these matters but the results of this poll are disturbing. So some of you think that if you ignore those rules, it's going to put you in better standing with the government when you try to get them repealed? Sheesh, if you don't respect the rules, they're not going to respect your appeals to restore catch and release policies. If you won't kill bass, find a small pond or another body of water that doesn't have these rules. Don't destroy your chances of ever being able to throw fish back again. A law is a law, stupid or not. You have it backwards as do most people. The majority is supposed to make the laws not the minority that think they know what is best for you. Only you can decide what is best for you not some invisable person who has no clue. Freedoms are few are far between these days but we won't get into that. This topic is going to be locked anyways so get it in while you can. 6 Quote
Super User K_Mac Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 Is it morally right to obey unjust laws? This is the real question. It is not a simple one. When laws are passed, whether by decree or the ruling majority, that are counter to our "God given" rights are we bound to comply? We are all bound by the consequences of disobedience. That is foundation on which all governments are built... and fall. 2 Quote
MassBass Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Lets throw a shipload of tea in the California Delta 9 Quote
blckshirt98 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I also like to think that any of the Department of Fish and Wildlife officers that routinely patrol the Delta will have some respect for the wildlife of the Delta and be somewhat understanding of why people wouldn't abide by the law and not be a power tripping a-hole and ticket everyone they see throwing fish back. Driving over the speed limit can get you fined and ticketed as well but not everyone sticks to the hard speed limit, nor does every police officer ticket someone for driving over the speed limit. All that being said something like this will never be passed because it would kill the business and communities along the Delta that rely on the sportfishing industry. Quote
monkeyman3dee Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Lets throw a shipload of tea in the California Delta This. /thread Quote
Super User HoosierHawgs Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 It is an issue of obeying a written law. Everyone has the choice to either live by those laws or join those who don't. If someone decides to break the law, they are no better or worse than anyone else who breaks another law. The vast majority have shown that they would break this hypothetical law. Are there any other laws that the majority are willing to break? Perhaps we should all agree to trespass on other people's private property to fish their ponds. Should we toss out creel or size limits? When you don't put human emotions into the subject, it becomes much easier to decide the difference between right and wrong. Funny how this forum's rules include a statement regarding that very concept. I'll bet the moderators expect us to follow that rule! Please read my above post. This law is unjust. Is MLK or other civil rights activist who peacefully disobeyed unjust laws morally wrong too? 1 Quote
Super User MIbassyaker Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 And please, don't turn this topic into a political argument. -Mgmt. So...I am being asked to respond to a poll about a political event -- that is about a government policy -- but not to turn the topic "into a political argument?" Am I missing something here? A response to this poll is literally a political argument. No? 4 Quote
Super User K_Mac Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 This isn't a discussion about partisan politics. It is about laws, their impact on bass fishing, and how we respond to and become a part of the process IMO. Two very different things. Of course that is only my opinion, and I don't have a vote here. Quote
Super User Scott F Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 Please read my above post. This law is unjust. Is MLK or other civil rights activist who peacefully disobeyed unjust laws morally wrong too?What is "unjust" about it? Invasive species can and do cause havoc within an ecosystem. I agree that killing your catch will have little if any effect on the bass population but maybe, the point of the proposal would be that the invasive species are unwanted and don't belong there. Here in the Midwest, we are fighting our own invasive species that are destroying our rivers and threatening the Great Lakes, the Asian carp. It is illegal to throw back any bighead or silver carp caught. Nobody here thinks that law is unjust. Maybe because we don't fish for the carp. People from Asia who like the carp and eat them probably wouldn't want the fish wasted. In many places, there are gamefish like musky that have been released illegally and have caused problems with local ecosystems. The musky fishermen don't like it that they can't have muskies in every body of water they can fish but they don't belong everywhere either. Maybe those that wrote the law are just from PETA and want all fishing stopped or someone is trying to restore what was once a good trout fishery. Getting rid of invasive species is a tough thing to do once the become established. It doesn't matter if the invasive is a fish that sportsman like to catch. If it doesn't belong there, some attempts should be made to correct the problem. This law probably is like taking a leak on a forest fire but what other plan that would cost next to nothing to implement is there? Quote
Super User MIbassyaker Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 Is it morally right to obey unjust laws? In a world in which the true level of logical and evidentiary justification for any proposition (or law) is always immediately known with 100% certainty and zero chance of error......perhaps not. But nothing in my experience suggests I live in such a world. 2 Quote
Super User K_Mac Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 Lets throw a shipload of tea in the California Delta I like tea. Quote
Super User Lund Explorer Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 Please read my above post. This law is unjust. Is MLK or other civil rights activist who peacefully disobeyed unjust laws morally wrong too? Just how far back in the bus did you have to go to stretch that point?!?!? Quote
Super User HoosierHawgs Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 What is "unjust" about it? Invasive species can and do cause havoc within an ecosystem. I agree that killing your catch will have little if any effect on the bass population but maybe, the point of the proposal would be that the invasive species are unwanted and don't belong there. Here in the Midwest, we are fighting our own invasive species that are destroying our rivers and threatening the Great Lakes, the Asian carp. It is illegal to throw back any bighead or silver carp caught. Nobody here thinks that law is unjust. Maybe because we don't fish for the carp. People from Asia who like the carp and eat them probably wouldn't want the fish wasted. In many places, there are gamefish like musky that have been released illegally and have caused problems with local ecosystems. The musky fishermen don't like it that they can't have muskies in every body of water they can fish but they don't belong everywhere either. Maybe those that wrote the law are just from PETA and want all fishing stopped or someone is trying to restore what was once a good trout fishery. Getting rid of invasive species is a tough thing to do once the become established. It doesn't matter if the invasive is a fish that sportsman like to catch. If it doesn't belong there, some attempts should be made to correct the problem. This law probably is like taking a leak on a forest fire but what other plan that would cost next to nothing to implement is there? Never said that was just either. (killing all carp that is Quote
Super User Jar11591 Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 It is an issue of obeying a written law. Everyone has the choice to either live by those laws or join those who don't. If someone decides to break the law, they are no better or worse than anyone else who breaks another law. The vast majority have shown that they would break this hypothetical law. Are there any other laws that the majority are willing to break? Perhaps we should all agree to trespass on other people's private property to fish their ponds. Should we toss out creel or size limits? When you don't put human emotions into the subject, it becomes much easier to decide the difference between right and wrong. Funny how this forum's rules include a statement regarding that very concept. I'll bet the moderators expect us to follow that rule! Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the government could pass NO law that you wouldn't obey? No matter how much that law goes against your personal standard of decency? I bet you go 5-10 mph over the speed limit from time to time. Soooooo, you just joined "the ones who don't" follow the law right? 1 Quote
Super User Jar11591 Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 When you don't put human emotions into the subject, it becomes much easier to decide the difference between right and wrong. Sounds a lot like the whole "I was just following orders" defense to me. Doesn't quite cut it for me. 3 Quote
Super User Jar11591 Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 Just how far back in the bus did you have to go to stretch that point?!?!? He only had to go back as far as your post in which you said "its an issue of obeying a wriiten law". Its the same idea, though two totally different topics. I'm sure people back then were pretty heavy on the whole "its the law" thing. Now I'm not saying this "kill all the bass law" is just or unjust, and luckily I don't have to figure it out because this particular law will not affect me. Quote
Super User K_Mac Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 The idea that breaking any law is the same as any other is not really valid. Our entire justice system is based on the punishment being equal to the crime. Breaking a fishing law and paying a fine is not the same as a violent felony. Arguing that some laws are unjust, and being willing to face the consequences of disobedience to those laws in order to change them goes back a long way. The "back of the bus" reference does nothing to further this discussion. 1 Quote
Super User Lund Explorer Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 He only had to go back as far as your post in which you said "its an issue of obeying a wriiten law". Its the same idea, though two totally different topics. I'm sure people back then were pretty heavy on the whole "its the law" thing. Now I'm not saying this "kill all the bass law" is just or unjust, and luckily I don't have to figure it out because this particular law will not affect me. It's obvious that I am in a battle of wits with a completely unarmed but overly emotional group, and I can find no reason to continue to respond until some of you can grow up enough to tell the difference between a hypothetical law about a stupid fish and laws designed to take away the rights of an entire race. 1 Quote
Super User Jar11591 Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 It's obvious that I am in a battle of wits with a completely unarmed but overly emotional group, and I can find no reason to continue to respond until some of you can grow up enough to tell the difference between a hypothetical law about a stupid fish and laws designed to take away the rights of an entire race. You are the ONLY one comparing the subject-matter of the two. Its definitely clear someone is unarmed in the wits department. & Ya know, its a good thing our government is so darned perfect, so now nobody has to decide for themselves what is right and wrong! And by this reasoning (or lack thereof), if its legal, it MUST be morally correct. Right? Tell me I'm wrong Mr. Wit 2 Quote
Super User Senko lover Posted October 23, 2015 Super User Posted October 23, 2015 You have it backwards as do most people. The majority is supposed to make the laws not the minority that think they know what is best for you. Only you can decide what is best for you not some invisable person who has no clue. Freedoms are few are far between these days but we won't get into that. This topic is going to be locked anyways so get it in while you can. Wow, back from the fair and it's still going. I thought it would be locked haha. Yes, I agree with you for the most part. BUT I think there are much better ways to protest than to disobey the rules. Doing the latter just gives you a worse chance of having the rule taken away. I'm probably biased because I've learned that with my parents lol 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.