Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Here's what some crackpot had to say about your "addiction".

"While I do not believe mortality alone is a litmus of ethicity, this
stark and wanton disregard for killing wildlife solely for your
pleasure shocked even me.

"It spanks of no conscience."

Yes, I agree with him! Thank you for posting! Have you extended an
invite to alt.flyfishing to this person? ...

No, I don't imagine PETA kooks would be welcome in
a newsgroup devoted to fly fishing. Well, except
perhaps for comic relief.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some cats I have to
maim this afternoon.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 10, 12:45 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Here's what some crackpot had to say about your "addiction".

"While I do not believe mortality alone is a litmus of ethicity, this
stark and wanton disregard for killing wildlife solely for your
pleasure shocked even me.

"It spanks of no conscience."

Yes, I agree with him! Thank you for posting! Have you extended an
invite to alt.flyfishing to this person? ...

No, I don't imagine PETA kooks would be welcome in
a newsgroup devoted to fly fishing. Well, except
perhaps for comic relief.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some cats I have to
maim this afternoon.

--
Ken Fortenberry

May I suggest the 3WT RPL for the Tabby? She'll make a dash for the
bowl but if you put the butt to her you can turn her around before she
makes the laundry room.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

On 8-Mar-2008, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Dave aka Pirate aka Bottom Dweller aka Asshole aka Fat Fool aka Jerk
nka Sisyphus

Please keep flme wars to other venues and other groups
Even if it is true and if it is about yourself

Fred

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...

I'm a developer so boolean logic is kind of my deal.

The fact is, if the rest 'could' be true, than it is true sometimes
and therefore holds true, so there's really no sense qualifying it.
So, given the true case of:

Wrong again!


(No sense arguing this point...really...mortality is never considered
to be 0)


Following the line of reasoning for debate...let's try out another
truth.

Fish are killed when caught and released.
Yes, of course, this happens. Yet, Plato, it does not matter because
human's recreation justifies it.
By that reasoning Socrates, humans can stress, maim and kill animals
for pleasure alone, this includes dogs and cats.
No, No Plato you must understand, Fish are different.
Why are they different Socrates and where will we draw the line?

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

The wind is blowing hard today eh?

JT
Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream
viability for the future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing.

JT wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
Fish are killed when caught and released.
Yes, of course, this happens. Yet, Plato, it does not matter because
human's recreation justifies it.
By that reasoning Socrates, humans can stress, maim and kill animals
for pleasure alone, this includes dogs and cats.
No, No Plato you must understand, Fish are different.
Why are they different Socrates and where will we draw the line?

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Fish are killed when caught and released.
Yes, of course, this happens. Yet, Plato, it does not matter because
human's recreation justifies it.
By that reasoning Socrates, humans can stress, maim and kill animals
for pleasure alone, this includes dogs and cats.
No, No Plato you must understand, Fish are different.
Why are they different Socrates and where will we draw the line?


That is a question that if taken to the extreme, wouldn't allow us to do
much or anything "for pleasure alone."


We play a game of baseball, we kill living things.

We go for a walk in the park, we kill living things.


Where do YOU draw the line? Insects, one celled animals,

Or why stop at animals, how about plants?

Or even bacteria and viruses?

We ALL draw a line somewhere.

Willi

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. ..
JT wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
Fish are killed when caught and released.
Yes, of course, this happens. Yet, Plato, it does not matter because
human's recreation justifies it.
By that reasoning Socrates, humans can stress, maim and kill animals
for pleasure alone, this includes dogs and cats.
No, No Plato you must understand, Fish are different.
Why are they different Socrates and where will we draw the line?

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

He he he!

I here cat tastes like chicken?

JT

"JT" wrote in message
...

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. ..
JT wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
Fish are killed when caught and released.
Yes, of course, this happens. Yet, Plato, it does not matter because
human's recreation justifies it.
By that reasoning Socrates, humans can stress, maim and kill animals
for pleasure alone, this includes dogs and cats.
No, No Plato you must understand, Fish are different.
Why are they different Socrates and where will we draw the line?

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

He he he!

I here cat tastes like chicken?

Make that "hear".... Too much going on today!

JT

On Mar 10, 2:04 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
JT wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
Fish are killed when caught and released.
Yes, of course, this happens. Yet, Plato, it does not matter because
human's recreation justifies it.
By that reasoning Socrates, humans can stress, maim and kill animals
for pleasure alone, this includes dogs and cats.
No, No Plato you must understand, Fish are different.
Why are they different Socrates and where will we draw the line?

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

EXCELLENT Socratic Dialog!

"Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must then eat
both the fish and the earthworm."

No, not nececessarily, Kenicles. For there is no longer a need to eat
the earthworm as you have a fish. If you are starving and the fish is
poor than I would agree. However, It would always be 'mean of spirit'
to impale the minnow or the earthworm just for fun, but we need to
eat.

"If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the same thing
as torturing dogs and cats."

Is it Kenicles? When it comes to what is acceptable to kill without
justification we seem to draw the line somewhere between simple
organisms and more complex organisms. Where is the line? Birds? Can we
hook a bird in the beak with a hook for pleasure? It would be fun to
play them in "three dimensions" over the Eridanos, would it not
Kenicles?, as long as they did not die, what would be the harm?"

Your pal,

Halfordicles

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

EXCELLENT Socratic Dialog!

Was it ? It was supposed to be over-the-top sarcasm.

"Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must then eat
both the fish and the earthworm."

No, not nececessarily, Kenicles. For there is no longer a need to eat
the earthworm as you have a fish. If you are starving and the fish is
poor than I would agree.

So if you're starving and the fish can loan you a five spot
you can grab a burger at Mickey D's and you don't have to eat
either the fish or the worm, but if the fish is poor you have
to eat both ?

I think I'm starting to get the hang of this Socratic dialogue.

What about rats and roaches ? If I kill a rat or a roach can
their families slip me a little cash and claim the bodies or
am I ethically bound to eat them ?

--
Ken Fortenberry