SemperFish;3741519; said:
Your points are contradictory. The argument makes no sense because if you are in it for profit you are not a hobbyist you are a business. You might not be a big corporation but you are making a business decision. If you are a hobbyist acting like a business but insisting youre not then you are just confused and therein lies the problem. This debate is not nearly as clever as you may have originally thought. The real ethical question is "who are you to tell a business how to conduct themselves. who are you, to tell another hobbyist what is ethical?" If I buy 50 fish to save a dollar on the one I want I am a fool. This isnt a revolution, dont feel you have to liberate your imprisoned fish buddies from the evil vendor.
Business is business, lets not pretend they are anything but that. Granted that there are other intrinsic values that we may factor into our decisions but the stores dont. For example, I often spend a little bit more for things at my local store than I would if i went down the road to petsmart, because I like to support small businesses. That action has value to me. I dont pretend for a minute though that they are not in it for my money.
Well its 4 in the morning here so Im going to stop ranting because I dont know how coherent Im being.
im confused at where guys are saying im contradictory. if one is selling fish for profit, hes is a business man, no longer a hobbyist, but he still claims himself to a hobbyist, then thats unethical .
Iffrat;3741715; said:
Historical accuracy
300's director
Zack Snyder stated in an MTV interview that "the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." He continues that the film is "an opera, not a documentary. That's what I say when people say it's historically inaccurate."
[79] He was also quoted in a
BBC News story as saying that the film is, at its core "a
fantasy film." He also describes the film's narrator, Dilios, as "a guy who knows how not to wreck a good story with truth."
[11]
so based off of historic facts .. well 90% was fact ...
and my logic is ..
ITS MY MONEY!!!!!!!!! I WILL SPEND IT HOW I WANT!!!!!!!!
now you have been told over and over you dont make any since .. your opinion jumps around all over the place .. and you make no since .. i dont know how many more people need to say it!!
sense is spelled s-e-n-s-e not since.
and i have said already, you are free to do whatever with ur money, i cant stop you.
Dragon Hunter;3741731; said:
thats not the point, fish can be sold for profit on the business level, but as hobbyist you should not ( unless u claim urself NOT as a hobbyist then you are free to sell for profit)
yogurt_21;3741929; said:
ok I'm sorry this has to be addressed, a director is not a historian, nor is he a reliable source for historical events. An mtv interview and his hearsay words do not count. The movie 300 was a fictional film based on a fictional graphic novel based on a fictional letter from a fictional survivior of a historical event. (count the times removed there bud). How much was history and how much was fiction can be debated but the fact that fiction is in there negates it's use as a basis for argument.
that said I'm a firm believer that as long as you're not purposely selling fish to people who won't take care of them properly go ahead and make your profit. If a retailert sells fish using a bulk discount it's because they are acting as a supplier as well as a retailer. There's no way a retailer would sell 50 fish at a discount and think that someone won't try to resell them. They are giving that discount because you helped them clear space and move more items at once. They got the fish from a supplier who also knew they would be resold for profit.
make your dollars and support your families, just make sure you ask some questions before selling to make sure you're not purposely supporting bad fish keepers.
you would be a responsible fish retailer i guess? since selling for profit= business .... would u still call urself a hobbyist( who keeps fish for the love of fish not profit)
BRYANT;3742043; said:
Pupumole, so you're saying fish keepers shouldn't spend money the way they want but the way you want them to spend it? What's wrong with buying a big batch of fish to select the kind of shape, pattern, color, etc for yourself and selling the extras to others for a cheaper price? What's the point of this whole thread? So that none of us hobbyists can spend money for our fish but the way you want us to?
no, i won't MAKE anyone go my way , because i know have no right to tell any of you what to do. i'm just saying that selling fish for profit as a hobbyist is not right. if you believe that, then choose for yourself what you want to do with your money. and i dunno if you've read through everything, i've repeatedly said that if you a buying a batch for the reason of choosing a certain pattern color or watever, thats OKAY , since thats not for profit.
koop171;3742074; said:
don't think that the vendors are not making any profit selling the fish in bulk for less money. If they weren't making money they wouldn't sell them at the lower price. I'm not against buying in bulk if you can house them. but I would buy bulk to hand pick the oddballs or the faster/slower growing ones to fit your tank better. then sell the rest. Depending on weather or not you need shipping selling the extras off to make back a little or more if possible isn't a bad deal some people just won't pay shipping and would love to see certain things come there way and not have to pay shipping cost.
so I say do it either way if you're doing it to make cash then ok but don't buy all the fish and jack your price up b/c you have the market cornered.
and if you're doing it to get a certain fish out of a group then do that also.
buying bulk in this case is to save shipping, then thats fine since thats not for profit. But if one is buying bulk to get lower pricing, raise the price a bit for some profit. and in the locals of that guy( no shipping cost involved) , the same fish is available around the area but at a slightly higher price for the non bulk buyers. so is it right for that bulk buyer to take that profit? or should that be left for the other little stores to profit so they can keep running.
Peanut_Power;3742826; said:
So, it would be considered unethical, if I am following this right, for me to buy a large amount of fish from a vender/LFS and then take them to a fish auction and sell them again? Even though I might be bringing in fish that are super hard to get in the area, and spice up the variety of the auction?
I guess I'm unethical then. . . although I have yet to make a profit from it. 
well... once again, its the reason of selling the fish.
your reason for selling is to improve the auction, and not intentionally making a profit. so no, u r not unethical : )
krichardson;3742912; said:
LOL.
He's very concerned about the plight of the dats and he wants to save them.I dont know what his efforts will accomplish but I commend him.
dunno wats so funny here
but in the case of dats, you all should be concerned. Not that i have first hand info on the status of the dats in their native water, but it cant be looking good when we are taking so many of them from the wild. I dunno what i can do, but at least i have the right mind set for conservation .
