Merry Christmas

"Opus" wrote in message
If it was up to PETA all fishing and hunting would be band.

But it's not, is it.

No thank God, at least not yet. For that to happen, there would have to be
more political consensus to support PETA's stated objectives.

I believe what is puzzling and troubling to some readers of this group is
the seeming acceptance of PETA's extreme positions against hunting, fishing,
flesh-eating, animal-owning and other such by participants in a newsgroup
who engage in at least some of the activities PETA wishes to ban.

How does one rationally reconcile the PETA mandate with one's own acceptance
of or participation in recreational or vocational activities which PETA
claims to be immoral? How can you support (in word if not in deed) an
organization whose views and actions are polar to what you practice? To
offer support to an organization which does not support you and your love
for something - in this case fishing - does not appear to some readers to be
a rational act.

Or, is it that Fred did not practice rational behavior in his response and
just engaged in a visceral response to a post clearly intended to be
humorous? If that is the case, Fred's response was an attack on the OP.
Perhaps there is a poisoned relationship at play here that I am not aware.
Clearly however, something is going on for this argument to spill over from
one thread to another.

Now what would be fun would be for some actual PETA or AIM folks to engage
in a discussion with this or like-minded NGs.

"johnval1" wrote in message
. ..

"Opus" wrote in message
If it was up to PETA all fishing and hunting would be band.

But it's not, is it.

No thank God, at least not yet. For that to happen, there would have to
be more political consensus to support PETA's stated objectives.

Exactly.

I believe what is puzzling and troubling to some readers of this group is
the seeming acceptance of PETA's extreme positions against hunting,
fishing, flesh-eating, animal-owning and other such by participants in a
newsgroup who engage in at least some of the activities PETA wishes to
ban.

How does one rationally reconcile the PETA mandate with one's own
acceptance of or participation in recreational or vocational activities
which PETA claims to be immoral? How can you support (in word if not in
deed) an organization whose views and actions are polar to what you
practice? To offer support to an organization which does not support you
and your love for something - in this case fishing - does not appear to
some readers to be a rational act.

I don't support PETA anymore than I support Christians that tell me I am
going to HELL because I don't believe in their god. It's a fact of life.
Do I believe that certain elements of the Christian religion would like to
do away with my kind, yes. Do I believe it is likely to come about, no. If
I feared PETA/Christians I might as well take my life, cause the end would
already be ata hand.

Or, is it that Fred did not practice rational behavior in his response and
just engaged in a visceral response to a post clearly intended to be
humorous? If that is the case, Fred's response was an attack on the OP.
Perhaps there is a poisoned relationship at play here that I am not aware.
Clearly however, something is going on for this argument to spill over
from one thread to another.

I don't think Fred's response was anymore irrational than the Christian's
response to someone that where's a shirt that defames there god. Yes, it
may be visceral, but it's haw strongly that person feels about the subject
at hand. Fred didn't think the t-shirt was humorous.

Now what would be fun would be for some actual PETA or AIM folks to engage
in a discussion with this or like-minded NGs.

Why would that be fun. Are angry tirades fun, for you?

It may be that that PETA person is actually quite intelligent and makes you
or some other person look like a fool in a serious debate of the subject.
Of course, these NG discussions rarely lead to intellectual debate. They
merely devolve into name calling and personal attacks.

Op

P.E.T.A.

People eating tasty animals, HE He

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

"Opus" wrote in message

I don't support PETA anymore than I support Christians that tell me I am
going to HELL because I don't believe in their god. It's a fact of life.
Do I believe that certain elements of the Christian religion would like to
do away with my kind, yes. Do I believe it is likely to come about, no.
If I feared PETA/Christians I might as well take my life, cause the end
would already be ata hand.

Sorry OP, I am not going to enter into a discussion of religion and how it
does or does not have any effect on you. Isn't this a grand non sequitar in
a discussion of animal rights suuport in a fishing newsgoup?


Now what would be fun would be for some actual PETA or AIM folks to
engage in a discussion with this or like-minded NGs.

Why would that be fun. Are angry tirades fun, for you?

It may be that that PETA person is actually quite intelligent and makes
you or some other person look like a fool in a serious debate of the
subject. Of course, these NG discussions rarely lead to intellectual
debate. They merely devolve into name calling and personal attacks.

First of all OP, I reject your contention that all NG discussions devolve
into name calling and personal attacks. You yourself are involved in one of
these discussions as am I. This still seems fairly civil, eh?

Secondly, "Why would that be fun?" If the definition of "fun" can include
enjoyment or pleasure taken from a thing or an event that stimulates, then I
would find such an exchange "fun" on a NG largely comprised of non-PETAs. I
am certain there would be angry tirades in such a conversation, but there
also might be some real viewpoints worth considering in the exchange.

As for angry tirades, I have seen them and have even engaged in them in
younger days. Looking back on them, they humor me now in ways I could not
have imagined then, if for no other reason than they were so irrational.

Thirdly, I don't believe the intelligence of PETA as an organization, nor a
PETA member/supporter is in question. Certainly not by me. My disclaimer to
you is that I have actually known PETA members, some of whom I suspected
were ELF members. There was nothing stupid or ignorant about these people.

My relationship with these folks neither threatened me nor did it "make me
look like a fool" in our discussions. At least not to myself. I can't
speak for them although one of them did use me for a reference on a job
application.

"catfish2006" wrote in message
et...
P.E.T.A.

People eating tasty animals, HE He

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

**** You! Hee Hee!

Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"johnval1" wrote in message
t...

"Opus" wrote in message

Sorry OP, I am not going to enter into a discussion of religion and how it
does or does not have any effect on you. Isn't this a grand non sequitar
in a discussion of animal rights suuport in a fishing newsgoup?


My point was not to enter into a religious discussion. My point was this:

You wrote in our firt exchange,

"How does one rationally reconcile the PETA mandate with one's own
acceptance
of or participation in recreational or vocational activities which PETA
claims to be immoral? How can you support (in word if not in deed) an
organization whose views and actions are polar to what you practice? To
offer support to an organization which does not support you and your love
for something - in this case fishing - does not appear to some readers to be
a rational act."

Now, insert the words "Christian" for PETA, and the words "diversed beliefs"
for the word fishing.


How does one rationally reconcile the Christian mandate [that I am damned to
Hell] with one's own acceptance
of or participation in recreational or vocational activities which Christian
claims to be immoral? How can you support (in word if not in deed) an
organization whose views and actions are polar to what you practice? To
offer support to an organization which does not support you and your love
for something - in this case diversed beliefs - does not appear to some
readers to be
a rational act.

You see, it's not a religious argument. It's simply word replacement.
However, the context is still the same.

I don't agree with Christians on every thing, but I do *support* some
Christian organizations. I give to religious causes, because I believe that
they do more god than harm. I don't give to other religious causes, because
they go against my beliefs. While not all Christians will tell me to my
face that I am going to Hell, they are likely thinking it, if they know my
beliefs. What I'm trying to show you is that I can support an organization,
even if they hold me in contempt as an organization, because I know that
their are good people who are a part of that organization. People that I
may like personally, but people with whom I don't share their passion for a
particular something or other.



First of all OP, I reject your contention that all NG discussions devolve
into name calling and personal attacks.

One with a PETA person and the likes of that catfish fella would certainly
devolve, and from my experience in Usenet, most of these types of threads
generally devolve into attacks and name calling. But you are correct in
stating that no all will devolve.

You yourself are involved in one of these discussions as am I. This still
seems fairly civil, eh?

Yes, but we are both trying to rationally understand one anothers positions.
It's not like we are at diametrical ends of the issue ourselves. Were I a
PETA member and you a gung ho gun rights and hunting/fishing advocate,
things might very well take a turn for the worse. I'd hope not, but who
knows?

Secondly, "Why would that be fun?" If the definition of "fun" can include
enjoyment or pleasure taken from a thing or an event that stimulates, then
I would find such an exchange "fun" on a NG largely comprised of
non-PETAs. I am certain there would be angry tirades in such a
conversation, but there also might be some real viewpoints worth
considering in the exchange.

I misinterpreted "fun" to mean a knock down drag out fight between PETA
members and rednecks. My bad! You know as well as I that this medium isn't
th ebest means of communication. Facial expression and body langauge
explains a great deal. We don't have that luxury.

As for angry tirades, I have seen them and have even engaged in them in
younger days. Looking back on them, they humor me now in ways I could not
have imagined then, if for no other reason than they were so irrational.

Sadly, I still engage in them, but I am trying to mature! That's a
difficult task at 48 years of age--old dogs and all that.

Thirdly, I don't believe the intelligence of PETA as an organization, nor
a PETA member/supporter is in question. Certainly not by me. My
disclaimer to you is that I have actually known PETA members, some of whom
I suspected were ELF members. There was nothing stupid or ignorant about
these people.

I have never met personally a person I knew to be a PETA member, but odds
tell me that you are correct. No matter ones special interest, there will
likely be a full range of intellects--depending on the siz of the group,
that is.

My relationship with these folks neither threatened me nor did it "make me
look like a fool" in our discussions. At least not to myself. I can't
speak for them although one of them did use me for a reference on a job
application.

My comment about "fools" was with in the context of Usenet and a devolving
thread. We never really know who is on the other end of the cyber line. I
don't consider myself to be overly intelligent and I don't consider myself
to be a complete idiot either. I am able to recognize when an individual in
a particular NG has a better grasp of the subject and is more articulate
than myself, so I chose my battles accordingly.

As you said, you had a relationship with the folks that you had your
discussions and they were likely face to face discussions. Usenet is a
whole other ball game. We may or may not know our opponents (for lack of
better term) knowledge of the subject at hand and we may or may not know
there ability to argue intelligently. In many cases, you get two guyz who
don't know **** from shinola about the subject they are arguing, so the
argument goes down hill rather quickly. In other cases, you get to guyz,
one who is very well informed about the subject and knows how to argue a
point intelligently, and one who is shooting from the hip and becomes
frustrated, and then the argument goes all to hell from one side. Then
there are the cases when two people can discuss a subject civilly, whether
they are particularly well versed on the subject or exceptionally bright.

As I said before, I don't know all that much about PETA, and that is one
reason that I won't damn them to hell. If I knew more about them, who
knows, I might agree with them or I might just hunt them down and throw fish
eyes at them :~^ )

Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Opus" wrote in message
.. .


I give to religious causes, because I believe that they do more god* than
harm.

*should have read: good

Freudian slip?

Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Opus" wrote in message:

Hey Opus, nicely put. I will not accept the substitution of "Christian" for
"PETA", and "diversified beliefs" for "fishing". Other than that, a very
nice post indeed. This theological twist is probably best left explored in
another NG.

I did enjoy the image of throwing fish eyes however. When the perch were
running on Muskegon Lake and on the Channel to Lake Michigan back in the
50s, we would sometimes run out of bait, be it minnows or worms. We would
resort to using the eyes from the fish we had already caught. So, I guess
there are a number of things we can do with fish eyes contrary to the PETA
way.

"Opus"
I give to religious causes, because I believe that they do more god* than
harm.

*should have read: good

Freudian slip?

I sense unresolved conflict Grasshopper. :-)

"johnval1" wrote in message
. ..

"Opus" wrote in message:

Hey Opus, nicely put. I will not accept the substitution of "Christian"
for "PETA", and "diversified beliefs" for "fishing". Other than that, a
very nice post indeed. This theological twist is probably best left
explored in another NG.

Are you saying that you don't "accept" my point or just that you don't like
replacing the word PETA, for the word Christian?

If it is the case that you don't "accept" my fine and well thought out
argument, well, you can just blow me, you filthy pig-mouthed scumbag! :~^ )

It's truly sad how an otherwise fine discussion goes all to hell, over
religion!

I did enjoy the image of throwing fish eyes however. When the perch were
running on Muskegon Lake and on the Channel to Lake Michigan back in the
50s, we would sometimes run out of bait, be it minnows or worms. We would
resort to using the eyes from the fish we had already caught. So, I
guess there are a number of things we can do with fish eyes contrary to
the PETA way.

I wouldn't, exactly, be a model PETA member. We used to take bullfrogs and
safety pin an M-80 in their mouths to make depth charges. I went through a
fair cruel period as a child. No furry critters, but reptiles were fair
game. guilt feelings may be why I didn't begin hunting until my late 30s.
Of course, the fact that I was too drunk and drugged up from 12 years of age
to about 35 years of age, might explain it too? Drug and alcohol free,
thankfully, these dayz. I can actually afford to do things I like to do,
within reason of course.

Op



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com