what would u do

[wheresmy50]

I don't think I compared fishing laws to slavery. Maybe stating that I did was intended to be some sort of rhetorical tool? I was merely giving an example of a situation where the law and morality butted heads. There are many others if you'd like to pick another.

It's easy to make an argument that it is not morally wrong to eat a dead fish instead of turning it into litter. Government wrote a law that doesn't make sense in order to make it easier for them to fine people, which they don't really enforce anyway. Play along if you like.

Religion and morality aren't related any more than legality and morality are.

When we come across a law that doesn't make sense, or we feel isn't right, everyone needs to make up their own mind about what to do. I don't think we should blindly do as we're told. That goes against everything the framers wanted for us.

[Mad Hatter]

So what would we all do if we KNEW we wouldn't get caught?! I'll be there is a pretty fair range of opinion on that. However - the right of your fist ends at my nose if we want to have any kind of orderly society. I'll take some laws, even if I'm on the wrong side of them occaisionally. Don't keep shorts. You'll feel lousy whem you look in the mirror while brushing your teeth in the morning...

[GonnaCatchABig1]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

When we come across a law that doesn't make sense, or we feel isn't right, everyone needs to make up their own mind about what to do. I don't think we should blindly do as we're told. That goes against everything the framers wanted for us.

isn't that what voting is for? granted the system as it is now isn't all that effective. but i thought that what was just quoted was the exact reason we have voting. most of the time we don't get a direct vote on laws. but we vote in the people who make them.

how ever what you just said in short was "if you don't agree with the laws, then it is perfectly ok to break them.". (for you at least, or whom ever chooses that path)

you think it's a dumb law. ok fair enough. (not totally in disagreement with you on that.) start trying to change them. (as people here on these boards often try to do) don't just go out and say "what a dumb law... i'm not going to abide by it." if every one did that, what the hell is the point?

example... "this guy is really getting on my nerves. the law that makes killing him illegal is stupid.. so screw it i'm just going to kill him. i don't agree with the laws, so it's ok."

i know that's far off from simply keeping a dead fish. buuuut it's the same principles. "i don't agree so i don't have to abide by." everyone has different laws they don't like. but simply breaking them isn't going to bring about any change. not too mention most are put in place for good reasons. then again there are some which are not.

[Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

I don't think I compared fishing laws to slavery. Maybe stating that I did was intended to be some sort of rhetorical tool? I was merely giving an example of a situation where the law and morality butted heads. There are many others if you'd like to pick another.

It's easy to make an argument that it is not morally wrong to eat a dead fish instead of turning it into litter. Government wrote a law that doesn't make sense in order to make it easier for them to fine people, which they don't really enforce anyway. Play along if you like.

Religion and morality aren't related any more than legality and morality are.

When we come across a law that doesn't make sense, or we feel isn't right, everyone needs to make up their own mind about what to do. I don't think we should blindly do as we're told. That goes against everything the framers wanted for us.

HOW BOUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE A LAW, YOU WORK TO CHANGE IT?

[wheresmy50]

I vote, but that's as much time as I'm currently willing to devote to changing dumb laws. So far it hasn't reaworked too well.

There's one significant differnce between breaking the law to kill (assuming you mean murder, not self defence, act of war, etc) someone and my example of one time keeping a short that was already dead. Murder is morally wrong. Someone can be criminally insane and think it's right, but they're wrong. People can be wrong. The morality of something is absolute. Also, morality aside, the consequences and enforcement are different. Plus murder isn't tasty, unless you're pretty screwed up.

What about breaking the law to do something that's not morally wrong? According to dumblaws.com, it's illegal to go to bed in MA without taking a bath. Ever do that? Does it make you want to run for state senate, or just ignore the dumb law? One is a lot easier than the other and doesn't require you to sell your soul.

[GonnaCatchABig1]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

I vote, but that's as much time as I'm currently willing to devote to changing dumb laws. So far it hasn't reaworked too well.

There's one significant differnce between breaking the law to kill (assuming you mean murder, not self defence, act of war, etc) someone and my example of one time keeping a short that was already dead. Murder is morally wrong. Someone can be criminally insane and think it's right, but they're wrong. People can be wrong. The morality of something is absolute. Also, morality aside, the consequences and enforcement are different. Plus murder isn't tasty, unless you're pretty screwed up.

What about breaking the law to do something that's not morally wrong? According to dumblaws.com, it's illegal to go to bed in MA without taking a bath. Ever do that? Does it make you want to run for state senate, or just ignore the dumb law? One is a lot easier than the other and doesn't require you to sell your soul.

see you are back to the morality thing. morality is absolutely NOT absolute. it has always since the dawn of man differed from region to region, tribe to tribe, and religion to religion. always. ALLLLLWAAYS.

a moral is nothing but an opinion. and everyone has their
own. different cultures will always have their own traditions and morals. they are most definitely not absolute.

it's legal to "murder" people in certain parts of the world. it's perfectly acceptable. so long as there is a ""good"" reason. like... marrying outside your religion.

over all morality is nothing more than socially acceptable behavior. and generally the principles behind them lend themselves to a productive peaceful and if permitted convenient life style for those in the tribe, pack, school, country, kingdom.. what ever collective of social animals you might belong too. and generally through out nature killing one of your own is considered a no-no because it is counter productive and destabilizes the pack.

i could go on forever about that, which runs into the history of mankind. social control. failed concepts. hypothetical scenarios. etc etc but i have fishing to do.

on to dumb laws.. most of those were written over a 100 years ago and have since been canceled out by other laws. for instance have fun trying to bring a rifle to church these days.


in summary.. you are entitled to believe and do as you will. it makes you no better, nor no worse than anyone else. how ever that is breaking a law. (be it stupid or otherwise) and breaking laws isn't going to change them. how ever advocating the breaking of the law this thread was about, could very well have bad impact on the fish we love so dearly. (imagine if everyone was "accidently" killing schoolies.)

now off to fishing..