Author Topic: Fish over Men (Read 739 times)

Fatty · « **Reply #15 on:** August 02, 2001, 05:46:00 PM »

I tend to agree that this is more of a bureaucratic error than the direct fault of Environmental Protection policies. Make your argument against bureaucratic nonsense and I'm on board.

A better example of environmental policies gone amuck would be the Oregon farmers denied any water all summer (for a suckerfish I believe?) until it was just recently overturned, too late for any crops this year.

jihad · « **Reply #16 on:** August 02, 2001, 05:57:00 PM »

I tend to agree that this is more of a bureaucratic error...

Yup, prolly a republican error. <snicker>

Fatty · « **Reply #17 on:** August 02, 2001, 08:48:00 PM »

You forgot the k in republikan. I'm sure it was somehow tied to the plot to take candy from underpriveledged babies and give it to corporate CEOs.

Careful Jihad, you'll start foaming again.

pimpjoe · « **Reply #18 on:** August 03, 2001, 01:32:00 AM »

yoj,
i appoligize if i feel like a human is more important than a fish, but im sure im deffenitely not the only one who thinks that way. how can we involontary put the lives of other human beings on the line for a couple of fish? im just saying that if it were me and i happened to live through that blaze i would raise hell over that one. just imagine how it felt to be burned alive because a few fish were in the water. are you willing to give up your life for a fish yoj?

pimpjoe <S>

p.s.
is that better stsanta?

Yoj · « **Reply #19 on:** August 03, 2001, 02:43:00 PM »

Come on Joe - you're misunderstanding me on purpose, aren't you? Come on - 'fess up!

Its quite clear that those people did not die because someone thought a fish was more important than their lives. If that did happen to be the reason, the person making that decision would be guilty of at least "depraved indifference".

We get way too much of this "black and white" dichotomy in these threads - the idea that if you don't think A then you must think B. I do not think that the right to life of an endangered fish is equal to the life of an endangered human. I do, however, think the right to life of an endangered fish should count for something compared to an UN-endangered human. I do think that the fish has some kind of right to life as a species. That means we can eat it, harvest it for commercial use, etc., - but we don't have the right to make it extinct just because we feel like it - not even if we can show a profit. If that means that every once in a while we can't do anything we want, just because of some damn fish - tough!

I'm not for giving voting rights to Salmon, but I don't mind some restrictions in order to ensure there ARE Salmon. There's few better things than Alder smoked Salmon.

- Yoj

Karnak · « **Reply #20 on:** August 04, 2001, 02:29:00 AM »

What yoj is saying is that we have to protect the life on the planet or we may end up giving all of our lives, the life of our species, for profit. What difference is it to give your life for a species or for a corporation's profit? You're still dead.

Sometimes you have to look at the big picture rather than the small. There are six billion humans on the planet, a few less doesn't matter in the long run.

In this specific istance the beaurecrat screwed up and people died who shouldn't have. Fox News then sensationalized it as they are wont to do to make it seem that there were actually regulations that stopped the firefighters from getting the water. That was utter and complete BS. Because of this two separate issues have been made to seem like one issue. Fox News is the party guilty of causing this deception.