How would you handle this?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
But that isn't you issue. Your issue is that a snot-nosed punk didn't kowtow to Bob. Everything else is just a strategy to get the kids in trouble, not for what he did but for how you feel.

I don't mind if he kowtows to me or not ... I have a lot of friends and associates I respect who I don't particularly agree with on a lot of things.

But to get along in this world you need, to some degree, to kowtow to societal expectations. That goes for all of us ... and when we don't, conflict is the inevitable consequence.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

---------- Post Merged at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 11:01 AM ----------

I hope you are noting that almost 99% of hunters are ethical and just darn good people and not lumping them all into an "extremist" category. Im a little sensative when folks talk about hunters and extremeist in the same sentenance. thanks

... I got this email from a hunter not 10 minutes ago ...

I spent a lot of money on the fence around Jan’s garden to keep the deer out and then more money to improve it when they still got in. Although it would be perfectly legal to shoot a deer on our property I just wouldn’t do it. So I drive 750 miles to Montana every year to hunt deer (I leave Thursday). Where we hunt deer in Montana there’s usually a small heard of mule deer that stick around the ranch manager’s house. We could legally shoot one but we consider them to be Dave’s “yard deer” and we’ve voluntarily put them off limits; you just don’t shoot Dave’s yard deer. Just because something’s legal doesn’t make it right.

... Bob

---------- Post Merged at 11:07 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 11:01 AM ----------

Closing the area to all Human activities would protect the sea life.

There's far more to consider than simply protecting the sea life. Parks are recreational areas that typically have to be managed in a way that accommodates multiple users. When the needs of those various users conflict, decisions have to be made about what accommodates the most users ... as was said in one of the Star Trek movies, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is now resource management works.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
Sorry for getting you geared up in your own agendas....

Shrug. It's a good agenda so no worries.

My agenda as you call it is that we - humans - are at our best when we live by laws, when we promote a uniform order, when we acknowledge that behavior need not be desirable to be acceptable. When we in the USA follow the principles upon which our government was founded. When we act as a nation of laws rather than a collection of tribes enforcing unwritten local rules through vigilante "justice".

And when I weigh everything that has been attributed to the kid against everything that has been attributed to Bob, I think they both failed but Bob's failures were more pernicious. The kid harmed an octopus, Bob harmed our standing as a society of law.
 
Shrug. It's a good agenda so no worries.

My agenda as you call it is that we - humans - are at our best when we live by laws, when we promote a uniform order, when we acknowledge that behavior need not be desirable to be acceptable. When we in the USA follow the principles upon which our government was founded. When we act as a nation of laws rather than a collection of tribes enforcing unwritten local rules through vigilante "justice".

And when I weigh everything that has been attributed to the kid against everything that has been attributed to Bob, I think they both failed but Bob's failures were more pernicious. The kid harmed an octopus, Bob harmed our standing as a society of law.

What you're proposing is that we become a nation of apathetic robots.

That might be the world you want to live in, but it's not the one that's existed on this planet since the days people started banding together in villages for mutual protection and benefit.

The law doesn't even begin to encompass all the nuances of societal behavior. Never did ... and hopefully never will.

Harming society occurs when people ... out of apathy or fear ... fail to stand up for what they believe is right. That path leads to totalitarianism.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
Shrug. It's a good agenda so no worries.

My agenda as you call it is that we - humans - are at our best when we live by laws, when we promote a uniform order, when we acknowledge that behavior need not be desirable to be acceptable. When we in the USA follow the principles upon which our government was founded. When we act as a nation of laws rather than a collection of tribes enforcing unwritten local rules through vigilante "justice".

And when I weigh everything that has been attributed to the kid against everything that has been attributed to Bob, I think they both failed but Bob's failures were more pernicious. The kid harmed an octopus, Bob harmed our standing as a society of law.

I see.

I on the otherhand, try to live my life considering first what is RIGHT OR WRONG, and what I think "ought" to be done whenever there is an issue I am faced with... I will consider the law, but this is the last thing I will consider, in determining what to do. There have been very few instances where I had any significant divergence between my Kantian style of ethical behaviors, and any laws that I would be forced to violate due to my ethics. If this happens, you have to consider how important the law ( and severity in breaking it is), and how close to a Categorical Imperative the ethical issue is, and how critical it is in my universe, for me to take this path.

In other words, if I was in a place where Rape was legal, and I saw one being committed, I would physically assualt the rapist, even if this was against the law..and would do so with no concern whatever for the law being broken. This would be a Duty, a Categorical Imperative.

If the killing of an endangered octopus was in front of me, while I would want to intercede, I would not consider breaking the law as feasible, as the severity of the punishment could be far more problematic for me than the feeling I needed to "right the wrong" being committed against the octopus. My Duty at this point would be to follow the law, over the duty to protect the endangered animal. Where duties are in conflict, it is often not so hard to determine the more important Duty.
And yes, I know the octo we are arguing about is not endangered....but I am on a roll :)
 
When the needs of those various users conflict, decisions have to be made about what accommodates the most users ... as was said in one of the Star Trek movies, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Bob, I think this is where you and I (and many others, apparently) diverged. As Kirk knew (and corrected Spock), sometimes the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many. In our society, we determined a long time ago that the legal rights of the individual trump the moral righteousness of the mob. Yes, this means that the tail sometimes wags the dog and things happen that lead us all to shake our heads - 500 police are paid overtime so that the KKK or some neo-nazis can demonstrate on courthouse steps, some obscure religious sect is allowed to heckle a serviceman's funeral, some Southern preacher can put depolyed servicemen at risk by scheduling a public Koran burning, people with no means of supporting children are free to have as many (or few) as they want at taxpayer expense, and, yes, a punk kid gets to harvest an octopus and give you lip when you call him on it. And we, as good citizens, are expected to not interfere with those individuals as they exercise their rights or, I submit, castigate them for doing so. In exchange, you are free to work to change the laws as you are now attempting.

Sorry for beating a dead horse, but I just can't let a Star Trek reference go uncorrected.

R/S,

db
 
In our society, we determined a long time ago that the legal rights of the individual trump the moral righteousness of the mob.

Only in so far as the mob's actions cross into illegality. Everything else, however much you call it bullying, is freedom of speech and of association. While I'm sure there were some people who were foolish enough to cross that line with what they said, I'm equally sure they're not really what you're whining about. When you were a LEO, you were bounded by the letter of the law as to when you could act -- non-LEOs don't get to use force when they act but we do have greater freedom of conscience as to where to focus our censure.

Amusingly, the guy who's up in arms about "keyboard warriors" is the same guy who was talking earlier about calling a lawyer friend or two out in WA to have them go after Bob. I guess if you use networking and a phone call, it's not the same thing.
 
, and, yes, a punk kid gets to harvest an octopus and give you lip when you call him on it. And we, as good citizens, are expected to not interfere with those individuals as they exercise their rights or, I submit, castigate them for doing so. In exchange, you are free to work to change the laws as you are now attempting.
This does point to the source of our disagreement ...

I did not interfere with the exercise of his right to hunt that octopus, he drove off with it that night in the back of his pickup truck.

I have every right to castigate him for what he did. Those who believe we do not have that right are empowering an entire generation of petulent, self-indulgent brats who think of no one but themselves. There's a high price to pay for granting that sort of "freedom".

I have every right to express my outrage, and to expose what occurred in a public place, as long as I do so in a way that does not infringe on his rights or cause him harm. That last is where we disagree. I didn't cause him harm ... idiots who can't control their behavior based on something they read did. Those people need to be held accountable for the harm they caused.

I can fall back on the same arguments Dylan used ... everything I did was legal.

If that upsets you, you can work to get the law changed ... just as I'm doing.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
No, Bob, I am not part of the apathetic robot party. :)

Humans...primates in general...are hard wired with social knee jerk behaviors. We see something and we react in the heat of the moment. When that happens, the results are usually flawed. In the best case we end up with a patriot act or the like. In many cases we end up with people dead, lives destroyed, and when it comes down to it, injustice that cannot be undone. The blame for those things is usually cast at the national level, the state level... The US interred people of Japanese ancestry... But the roots of the problem are personal. A nation is just a collection of people. People do the harm.

I am not advocating tolerance. Tolerance should never be our goal. I'm saying that you should take appropriate action. Action that helps us exercise the best parts of our nature instead of triggering our worst reflexes. Do you believe that your actions met that standard? All of them? From what I have heard I think some did, but others fell far short. The harm from those that fell short is worse than the harm you were reacting to.

In my opinion, of course.
 
I have every right to express my outrage, and to expose what occurred in a public place, as long as I do so in a way that does not infringe on his rights or cause him harm. That last is where we disagree. I didn't cause him harm ... idiots who can't control their behavior based on something they read did. Those people need to be held accountable for the harm they caused.

As much as I hate citing to Wikipedia... :wink: Heckler's veto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom