Print

Print


At 03:35 PM 4/23/99 -0500, John Nitrox wrote:
>At 12:27 PM 4/23/99 -0400, Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) wrote:
 
Just think -- Strike and Roger was having this conversation this morning:
 
R>I've gone six hours with out a post from scuba-l. I'm  just wondering
R>if it is the list or my POS server.
>
S>What it is, of course, is the fact that there's no controversial
S>debate raging!
 
Well, this is not going to turn into one, even if it seemed that
way.   Let me preface my reply here by declaring that while I have an
abundance of trees in my front and back yards, I have not yet hug
any of them!   :-)
 
 
>>John, you were the one who pointed out Cousteau's brutality.  You now
>>seem to take the opposite position in his defense.
 
I was referring to these:  On 4/21 you wrote,
 
JN>It's kind of chilling - reading how casually Jacques would harpoon dolphins
JN>and leave them for sharks to eat or harpoon and shoot whales with dum-dum
JN>bullets.
 
Two days later, you wrote,
 
JN>When I first read _Silent World_ in the mid-fifties I remember
JN>thinking that Cousteau was so delicate and caring that I thought he was a
JN>little effeminate. Now 45 years later people seem to think he was a brute.
 
The two positions didn't seem to agree, and so I commented
 
JN>Certainly Cousteau changed,
JN>but the world changed as much or more, and if Cousteau had anything to be
JN>embarrassed about the world has more to be embarrassed about.
 
RF>Non sequitur.
 
Meaning, just because there are more killings NOW doesn't excuse his
misdeeds decades ago.   I gave Cousteau plenty of credit where credit
was due (pity you snipped them all ;-)).   I was just AGREEING with
you that his unnecessary killing of dolphins and whales was not a
good thing.
 
>Context!
>
>        That statement followed Jean-Marc's suggestion that "Cousteau wasn't
>particularly proud of those things...."  My assertion is that there is
>nothing about which he should be embarrassed.  He behaved admirably in the
>world of the 50s and it's a sorry thing to judge him harshly from a changed
>set of mores in the 90s, particularly since most of us have gone through
>similar transformations.
 
That's why I used this ANALOGY:
 
>  Increased killing does not excuse a single killing.
>>It is that kind of mentality that contributed to the Colorado shooting
>>incident that is not found in any other country other than this,
>>and in INCREASING frequency too.
 
See, this is current NEWS.   There hasn't been any news lately on mass-
shooting of WHALES.   So I simply used that to suggest in Cousteau's
case, the fact that there're more WHALE killings now in no way
justifies his deed decades ago -- ANALOGOUS to the fact that there
are more killings of PEOPLE today doesn't justify anyone shooting and
killing a person decades ago.  Granted, the analogy is far from perfect.
If I had given it another day or two of thought, I might have come up
with a better one.   But this is supposed to be light, cream-puff
SCUBA banter!
 
>        When I was in junior high school I took guns to school as did many
 
You mean they don't do it in Chicago now?   :-)
 
>It never occurred to anyone to shoot people.  I don't equate killing humans
>with killing fish or ocean mammals, and unless you do, I'm not clear what
>you are implying here.  The silent scream of a vegetable being picked
>doesn't carry any moral weight with me, but human life does.
 
John, I hope my explanation above sufficed to say that it was my
ANALOGY.   Furthermore, I am no tree hugger, and I never hear my trees
or veggies scream at me.  I was merely puzzled at you APPARENT
change of attitude about Cousteau's molestation of dolphins and
whales within a couple of posts.  That's all.  Lighten up.  ;-)
 
>>We are insensitized.  I am not a religious person (though I was at
>>one time <G>), but I still think the intent of "thou shalt not kill"
>>does not have a clause attached it that if it meant politically
>>correct to some, then it's okay to bomb the hell out of some other
>>country and kill people there, innocent or otherwise.
>
>        I liked this paragraph so much I couldn't delete it; I hope this
>isn't too much non scuba content for Nick.
 
Are you trolling for Nick?  :-)  He only goes after your obscure
jokes.  FUC 6.2.   He understands my plain talk.   :-))
 
Hope this concludes our pseudo-tree-hugging discussion/debate.
 
>DPTNST,
>
>
>John
 
DPTFT,
 
-- Bob.