General Discussion : 20006


General / 20006

Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Hunh? (...) Oh, you just mean that you like the game boy game, right? Have you seen the show? Is the game just the same? For what age group do you think that Pokemon is appropriate? Chris (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I discovered that I actually like Pokemon. Anyone hear an echo? :-, (...) It started from that, yes. Barbara and I have also recently started buying into some of the cooler miniatures; I currently have Cubone sitting Shiva on my computer (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Make that 7, (either that or my son and the rest of his classmates are, on average, brighter than average, which is entirely possible, given where we live.) because that's when Nik started hugely enjoying the GB game. The card game is playable (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Jeff Thompson

(...) Heh Atop my monitor: Gengar, Sandslash, and Lickitongue (who I joke looks as if he wants to grace the cover of the next Rolling Stones album). I'm hoping to win a bid on a Marril ("Pikablu") figure on Ebay at some point. :^) My gripe about the (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Eric Joslin

(...) The reason for different mosters in different version is pretty simple- you're supposed to buy one and trade (via the Link Cable) with other players. Pokemon was Nintendo's answer to the Tamagotchi trend. The advantage that Pokemon had was (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) with (...) Well...The 64 game is just the fighting aspects, with none of the (admittedly limited) RPG elements from the Game Boy version. It does let you use your GB pokemon in the 64 environment, which is cool, and offers a better GUI for (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Eric Joslin

(...) One of the things that has kept me from buying Pokemon Stadium is that it seems heavily geared towards people who own a Game Boy and the Pokemon game for GB- the "rental" Pokemon in Stadium are always described as "inferior" to Pokemon you (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) an (...) Pokemon, (...) You need the cart, but not the GB. And if you want to trade with anyone else who has the GB version, then you'll need an additional cart interface thingy, which (I believe) is another $30. Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Jeff Thompson

(...) So which version is the best to begin with? (Or for someone who doesn't know many other Pokemon Gameboy players, so the trading aspect might not be that important?) Jeremy, do you have any suggestions? (...) with (...) I've seen screenshots, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) you're (...) Start with Mewtwo. ;-) You're pretty much limited to your starters. In Red & Blue, you can choose from Charmander (fire), Bulbasaur (grass), or Squirtle (water); your in-game rival picks after you, and gets the one that beats your (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Whew! (...) The cartoon basically simulates cockfighting, which is an image that I would prefer not to idealize for the kids. Chris (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Why not? I mean, what makes cockfighting more violent than, say, Star Wars? note: I feel that cockfighting is bad, but I just haven't seen a good enough explanation to justify that feeling to myself... As for justifying Pokemon, it's a game. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Good question. I don't have a definitive answer but I do have some further thought starters... In Star Wars, is there a good side and a bad side? Is the simulated violence there as part of the story line? Or is the violence there merely to (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) would (...) You probably weren't really expecting an itemized response, since it was mainly a thought exercize, but here one is anyway. (...) Yes. Though I don't see the Empire as being all that different from most real empires (such as the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

Rearranged the order a bit. Chris said: (...) Zero-th order answer: None. To that approximation, we're in agreement. Chicken fighting is something I'd never indulge in, never bet on, and never view. Further, I'd rather my kids didn't play games that (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Jeff Thompson

(...) How do we define 'sentient?' Is it different to eat a chicken than it would be to eat Koko the sign-language-using gorilla? -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily?" (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) In kind? No. In degree, yes. At least I think so. I'm not much in the mood for gorilla meat but I've seen chickens perform tricks. Not as elaborate ones, mind you. I guess I'm saying I'm not sure gorillas are sentient. But then, I'm not sure (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I agree with this bit, but I'll get to sentience a bit further down. (...) Never? You allude further down to being close (at least) to buying in to the idea that you're rationallizing somewhere. Mightn't you change your mind? If not, why not? (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

Oh boy, I am in over my head on this one. Rather than analyse in depth every one of Chris's point by point responses (well done as usual), I think I'll try to take the easy way out and say why I think I'm on thin ice as a meat eater and leave it at (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Those are the most important ones to work through. It's neat to pat yourself on the back and show off how good you are, but it's nothing compared to finding a hole and fixing it. (...) Why? Too busy? (...) I agree with all this. (...) OK. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Tom Stangl

(...) I can comfortably say I will NEVER stop eating meat (barring an accident that keeps me from chewing/swallowing food, or meat being outlawed). I don't care if it is "needed" or not, I LIKE it, I am an omnivore. I also feel that people shouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Mark Sandlin

(...) I'm right there with you, Tom. A good friend of mine is a vegetarian because of the whole cruelty-to-animals thing. Every once in a while I ask him why he wears leather. He never has come up with any kind of sensible response. OTOH, I don't (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Todd Lehman

(...) What timing -- just stumbled onto this from a robotics site: (URL) an article entitled "Scientists plan meat-eating robot." Enjoy. --Todd (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thanks. So some hundreds or thousands of robot generations down the road, when these meat eating lawn mowers have evolved enough to have conversations about morality, they are going to argue something as follows: Robbie: "it's OK to eat meat. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

Darn it, hit send too early, I forgot one... (...) because (...) Peter: "all this arguing confuses me. Me, I'm just the lawnmower." ++Lar (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Andy Evans

(...) <snip> (...) Sounds like a line from an old Genesis song... "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk." I always wondered what Peter Gabriel was on about. Man that dude was ahead of his time. :) Regards, Andy (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ding ding ding! Got the reference in one! Good work. (all the others are references too, BTW) (...) Is, although more so then than now. IMHO. ++Lar (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) (URL) (...) Dude! That is so cool. I wanna go to Hawaii to see it ('course I'd hate to see the rest of that particular tropical paradise while there :-). I mean, this is like the next big break if they can make it smart enough to feed itself. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) the (...) If (...) the (...) decide (...) in (...) keeps (...) is (...) That's fine. But you weren't the one that recognized your infirm footing. I would not say that to someone who was unwilling or unable to examine the moral logic from the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I've been to a LOT of steakhouses(1) and rib places and prime rib places and I confirm that Outback is not that great. It's good enough if you don't have 3 hours and don't want to spend 50 bucks a head (not including wine)... you can 1 - I (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Dave Schuler

(...) I am equally convinced that anyone who every person who eats plants must acknowledge the fundamental equality between vegetarianism and carnivorism insofar as the both pertain to the consumption of (once) living (and, as I explain below, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) If (...) They are equal in that life is extinguished by both. (...) I'll get to you description below, but for now: Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing. (...) Maybe somewhat arbitrary, but not, I would say inconsistent. (...) Right, but there is (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) The box jellyfish -- posessing eyes but no central nervous system -- sees a danger and swimg away from it, but does it perceive it? (...) It's a matter of degree. The brain is simply a well-tuned bundle of cells that automatically reacts to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) really (...) rock (...) Cool example. I have acknowledged that there is fuzziness. But at least so far as examples of sentience I think that having eyes counts. I'm not sure that gets it off the hook regarding my morals about eating. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Dave Schuler

(...) Oh, brother. I always marvel at the cleverness of that answer. (...) Since you're arbitrarily deciding what does and doesn't qualify as sentient, I'd say you're being inconsistent. You've demonstrated that you don't care to confront this in (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Sorry about this first bit, but I want to get it squared away. Through the comment: (...) It sounds like you think I'm being less than congenial. Through the comments: (...) It seems to me that you're not being fully congenial. But in other (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Mark Sandlin

(...) Perhaps not... think about all that's required to maintain, for instance, Beef production. You need lots and lots of land, you need to keep your cattle healthy, feed them, move them about, etc. If someone were to come up with a relatively (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Tom Stangl

(...) Oh, I REALLY doubt that. Vat-grown meat could be tailored with a specific fat content, and be basically ready to eat right out of the vat - the cutting into "steaks" could be roboticized (or the meat could be grown in "steak" shaped chunks, or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Chris Maddison

(...) all (...) it (...) chunks, (...) thicknesses to (...) farmers (...) You're right Tom, we sure would. I'm from Iowa, and 18. Although my family doesn't raise cattle, it IS one of the main sources of income for this entire state. Three things: (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Mark Sandlin

(...) I understand your points about the agricultural economy, and I understand about the aesthetic differences, but I think you have the disease equation bass-ackwards. In a lab, the meat could be kept 99.999% disease-free. Beef that's released (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry PotterLego Line)) —Tom Stangl

Not to mention the economies would just shift to compensate - nothing says the beef would all be grown in labs out of the control of farmers. Smarter farmers would create collectives and invest in the technology, with each farmer getting a share. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It doesn't sound like you're a middleman from your description. (...) So? Which members of society is it that you imagine to owe you a living? You, and all people, can change with the times or be left behind. We have VMS admins at work who are (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Dave Schuler

(...) I admit that I was a little more sharp-tongued than the situation justified, and if so I certainly apologize. I was reacting to "Bzzzt. Wrong answer" more than anything else, which has always struck me as an attempt to belittle the opposing (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Flesh eaters stole my brain (was Re: Why is cockfighting bad? —Larry Pieniazek

This debate has been churning along (very) nicely (and quite civilly, as these go, I think the same old players are getting better at debating nicely) without too much input from me since I ducked and ran (:-) but one nugget here got me to thinking. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Flesh eaters stole my brain (was Re: Why is cockfighting bad? —Dave Schuler

(...) C'mon Lar--don't cloud the issue with a call for facts! Actually, I'll have to recheck my info. Maybe it *was* earthworms, and they're not half as crunchy as insects. To digress re: Ant Weight, here are a few tidbits I came across: from (URL) (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Flesh eaters stole my brain (was Re: Why is cockfighting bad? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What friends? ;-) (...) anything (...) I don't mind if you eat meat from vats. As I said, I might even do so a bit to try it out. I find myself very rarely wanting sausage or bacon. (...) Yup. (...) Let the technology and the market worry (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Flesh eaters stole my brain (was Re: Why is cockfighting bad? —Steve Bliss

(...) Here's an odd twist to think about: most (all?) domesticated animals, especially farm animals, are sufficiently different from their wild bretheren that they can be considered separate species. Also, if we can raise meat in a vat, we can (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Flesh eaters stole my brain (was Re: Why is cockfighting bad? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Is that really true? Cows can breed with bison, so it's hard to imagine that they can't breed with their forebears. (Don't they come from European water buffalos or something?) I also recal a story from somewhere, maybe a class, where some (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Cool, thanks. (...) My primary criterion is pain. There is a bunch of more aesthetic than logical stuff coloring what I think is OK to eat, but pain is the big thing. And do you mean that the animal lucked into mobility or thought? Either way, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm not sure why I thought that--it seemed likely that you'd object on some grounds, but given what you said later in the post, I suppose it *is* a consistent assertion. (...) As a matter of fact, I'm floating disembodied in a tank and (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Wow, cool. A real brain? I didn't think anyone was relying on flesh bits anymore. I'm an electronic simulation loaded on 300 computers all heading away from earth at .96C. Sorry for the delay getting back to you. Chris (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Dave Schuler

(...) Yeah, I'm old fashioned that way. (...) What are you talking about? I got your reply before I even posted! Dave! (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) (snipping freely if I don't have a point to make) (...) Why is it clearly not needed? Because we are now clever enough to balance our diets properly such that we can get all the nurtients we need without resorting to meat? Is that true over (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Frank Filz

Interesting debate. I'm not sure I can do this justice with my head hurting the way it is, but bear with me while I explore some thoughts. One thing which is clearly an issue in this debate ultimately comes down to what makes us different from other (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: (snipping all the things previous that I agree with - excellent analysis) (...) Indentured servitude did not give over the right to life, but it was form of slavery, so I would disagree with this (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

Oh gosh...lots of comments to make. Don't you people realize I need to get some work done ;-) (...) what makes us different from other living things, if (...) You say this and don't seem to answer it? What are your thoughts about the differences and (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) If (...) in (...) resorting (...) Clever enough to balance our diets and clever enough to invent and operate a food production system that can produce all the food (and more) that we need without killing (well, I supose tractors do kill field (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) our (...) So it is only now that it is immoral, and not in previous generations? Or was it a necessary immorality all along? Hmmmmm (I'm pondering this, by the way - the questions are just questions). (...) What if their culture chooses to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

Gosh, these are getting long. (...) organic (...) The former. I believe that it was not evil when it was the only option. That is not the nature of evil. (...) If a person or people are given the chance to improve their moral ground, and do not, my (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) was (...) - (...) Fair enough. Hmmmm, situational ethics, though. Them's the breaks, I guess. (...) As long as they understand the situation...okay, I might not agree with what you define as evil, but its a reasonable process. (...) Yes, that (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Right, OK, I see what you want now. It is wrong to cause pain in others. This may either be 'commuted' or ignored (depending on how you look at it) when it is needed for your survival. (...) them. One has to eat something and one has to defend (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) TIME WARP WARNING: My replies do not always follow a chronological sequence. Explanations to such lurk somewhere in the middle. (...) This (...) Aha! What we need is a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy beast that kills it self (humanely). :-) (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But in the world of predators and prey, one is attacked. One must be able to defend oneself. (...) to (...) Defense we gotta do. (...) important (...) It is ultimately about pain and suffering. And it is ultimately about killing. Both are (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm only offering a quick $.02, since this isn't my branch of the debate, but I'm perceiving a miscommunication of intent here. I think Bruce's assertion is that the biological need for food and the need for the means to acquire food have (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Essentially. One is at an extremely basic level, the other is not. Inferring too much from them as a matching set is fraught with hazards. Best to make the point with some other example. Bruce (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

Hmm, just a random potshot here. (...) If what defines us is our use of tools and our ability to manipulate the environment instead of just react to it, both of which are due to our ability to reason in a self aware manner, how are a club and a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You are right, it is not germane. :-) Or to put it another way: you go hunting with a nuke? I don't see how the "right" (need, whatever) to use nukes relates to killing some animal for food (which is what this was about). It's a weird tangent (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Your claim was that the 'need' to do something (eat) granted the 'right' to do something (kill (almost) anything). But you reject the first analogy that I tried relating the hunting of deer to the hunting of people. So I tried relating the (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No, that's your interpretation of it, but that's not what I said. "Rights" are an artificial construct of humans so that they can better live together. Eating is a one of our most basic needs, not a right. (...) I explained why I feel they are (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) do (...) are (...) I didn't contradict that. Note above that in my attempt to show what you were saying, I state that eating is a need. So it is what you said...right? (...) I agree with this for the most part. Many predatory fish will eat the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Chris Maddison

OK, I think I'll step in now and rant a bit. This has nothing to do with nutritional value, or anything like that, just my overall view. This'll be a long one... I hunt. Deer, rabbit, squirrel, and pheasant. Deer for the most part. Now, I've been (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <snip> (...) And some of the non-hunters as well. I personally don't hunt, don't personally care for it, but I think it's a good skill to have. And I wish all hunters were as thoughtful as Chris. Hunters indeed were the first conservationists. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Chris Maddison

<snip> (...) Thanks Larry. I attribute my thoughtfullness and values to my father. He's taught me to respect the animals and the land, all that good stuff. I wish all hunters could have a positive influence such as this. If they did, maybe we (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

I guess this was in response to me, though I'm not exactly sure how. I hate to risk trying to connect it to the topic before which was based on rights and responsibilites since that doesn't seem to be the main point. So I'll take an approach (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Chris Maddison

(...) to (...) Well, it's not in response to anyone; I've just been sitting back looking at the whole issue over animals and cruelty and the like develop, and I just decided to voice my opinions, on a somewhat related although different matter, if (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Hi again, I think that this will forever be our stumbling block. I presume that you base these theories on a holy text of some kind rather than observable phenomina? (Except, of course, the bit about the relationship between prey and predator (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) Perhaps not some preordained purpose, but they do fill a role as prey, just as humans fill a role as (for instance, with thanks to George Carlin) the manufacturers of plastic. (...) Do you actually believe this? We're talking about deer, (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I didn't know that George Carlin was crucial to the plastics industry. ;-) Absolutely. They are prey to wolves, people, etc. -- and they prey on vegitation (preferring my juvenile apple trees to all else, so it would seem). (...) I believe (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) I disagree. They are prey regardless of what they choose, but sometimes they are eaten and sometimes they are not. (...) But is it a "want"? Their hearts keep beating, but not because they want them to. (...) Ignoring for the moment that there (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But it would seem then that you remove meaning from the term 'prey.' By what I think you're saying, all organisms are prey. If so, what point is there in using the term? (...) I think that eating in response to hunger is very different than (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) I think you're referring to my earlier comment about "being prey to bacteria," by which I was being (in retrospect) unclearly rhetorical. I would say that prey can be defined as an animal consumed by a predator, while a predator is an animal (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) they (...) So humans (at least Bangladeshis) are prey too? Because they are hunted sometimes by predators. How's this: In addition to being prey, deer are a great many other things, and I don't think that their happenstance role as prey in the (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) Absolutely! Just as I would be prey if I slept unprotected on the veldt, and just as the poor guy a few weeks ago (in Canada? I can't remember) who was eaten by a bear. (...) Being prey doesn't preclude being other things, too. Many predators (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Tom Stangl

(...) Handled below... (...) That's assuming deer HAVE that complex of a longterm memory (as opposed to spacial memory maps of the best places to eat, and instinct for a certain breeding grounds they've never been to before). (...) Nope - that can (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) doesn't (...) season. (...) Absolutely. And I could be wrong. But in many ways it seems safer to assume similarity than difference. (...) ivy? (...) Agreed, but I'm not sure it's that simple. (...) Right. You're not going to change, and I'm (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Tom Stangl

(...) OK, I should have stated "giving SOME animals". I agree with the above, obviously some animals are quite intelligent. But I certainly don't put deer, fowl, or beef cattle in their ranks. (...) Bull. All rules can be broken (except some (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) obviously (...) beef (...) OK, my bad. I had been using the deer (even prior to your entry into the discussion) as an icon for the other animals in general. that was sloppy of me. I am willing to disucuss any given animal's capabilities (...) (24 years ago, 6-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting —Dave Schuler

(...) Out of curiosity, how is this determined, other than by casual observation? And how broad a range of behaviors do the chickens exhibit? This would seem central to a useful discussion of chicken intelligence. By the way, is your use of (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) clearly (...) that (...) Hi, I'm out of town and this is likely to be my last access to the net until Monday or Tuesday, so I'm a bit behind. In backward order: It was not a subtle propoganda on my part, but now that it's pointed out, I think (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Tom Stangl

(...) Do you HONESTLY think human sex drive is the same as deer? Come on, now, really. Deer don't have recreational sex, humans do. While hormones CAN affect humans, humans can generally have/not have sex whenever they feel like it. (...) If I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, that's not what I said, is it? At least not that it's exactly the same. I think that more paralells can be drawn between human and deer motivation than many people seem to think are valid. (...) Cite. (...) And do. All the time. Every (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Tom Stangl

(...) Show me a deer copulating outside of the hormone driven mating season. You won't find one, unless some researcher is playing with deer hormones (which points back to deer not having the control humans do). (...) Nowhere near the same way as (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) won't (...) back (...) OK, I guess I have two comments to this, but I want them to come after first noting that I agree with the general gist of this. One thing, is that we may have lucked into not being hormonally ruled WRT our mating habits. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm not sure of their exact evolutionary similarity, but the Bonobos chimps demonstrate a considerable sex drive and incorporate sexual play into their everyday social structure. In addition, several Victorian-era zoos found it unacceptable to (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Selçuk Göre

(...) <snip> (...) Heh!.. <snip> (...) Yes, and it's about killing for pleasure and enjoyment. (look at the quotes below) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Yes, completely...:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Kevin Wilson

(...) Just out of curiosity Chris, if you don't like the actual killing part, why not hunt with a camera instead? The actual hunt part should be just the same, but instead of killing the creature you get as good and close a pic as you can manage. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Chris Maddison

(...) Aye, Kevin, I do that too. Me and my dad go out with videocameras and trail timers yearround and take pictures and movies and such. But shooting things with a videocamera doesn't put food on the table. I like deer meat, and that's why I hunt, (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher Tracey

(...) I'm not sure on the deer populations for where you live, but in many areas of the eastern US, hunters should be taking at least four dear to keep the pops to reasonable numbers. (...) While hunter's have fostered several great conservation (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No. You keep equating rights and needs as the same thing. I'm saying they are not the same thing. Your first line in this sequence is incorrect on my outlook: that's your interpretation of it but that's NOT what I said. (...) don't (...) of (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Christopher L. Weeks

I'm rearranging some of the points, but not the text within the points. (...) OK, I guess I can't completely. (...) Oh...I'm not trying to convince you to stop eating meat at all. And I don't think that nukes have anything to do with whether you (or (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) See that sentence above? Read it in its entirety. See the word "right"? See the word "need"? See how you place them in the same sentence and attribute them to me? This is your interpretation (i.e. what you THINK is the case). It is not (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) To further the line of ungermane thoughts, I think it's safe to say that more people have died from club attack than nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why that seems significant at this time, but it does. Chris (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That may be his assertion, but I would say that nuclear weapons are the natural outcome of eons of development too. The entire time that we've been growing more efficient at eating mroe things, we've been growing more efficient in defending (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Major snippage thoughout - not because the discussion points were unworthy, but that it got to be too sprawling and too conuterproductive to the main theme. (...) I was talking about ME, not you. You snipped my explanation of such. :-) (...) (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Oh! Not on purpose...I guess I misunderstood. (...) again. (...) No, not exactly okay. I mean, it's to be avoided when possible. But if your choice is to kill or be killed, what do you choose? Under most conditions, I think I'll choose kill. (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) by (...) But your example wasn't a case of kill or be killed (which implies self- defense). It was kill or die (murder someone else to escape death). (...) While interesting, this doesn't address my question. (...) Hmmmmmm. (...) Actually, I (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Tom Stangl

(...) Yet there are people out there that would probably choose to die rather than kill - my wife doesn't think she could kill someone to protect her life. All I can hope is that if that situation ever arises, that I am there, because I have no (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

What's up Tom? You just dial in to .debate and get angry? (...) your (...) I (...) kill - (...) Yeah, my wife used to say that, but she doesn't any more. I simply don't understand it, but I acknowledge that it's there. I'm not sure what it shows WRT (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Darth is the one with the split personality, thanks to Obi-Wan. Bruce (and what in the world does cockfighting have to do with movie mayhem?) (No, don't answer that, anyone, it was rhetorical) :-) (24 years ago, 18-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Debatable -- the "good guys" essentially were armed terrorists until they won and re-wrote the history books. (...) The story line for Pokemon includes perhaps the same abount of violence. (...) Another gray area. Certainly, the aspect of Star (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I typed out a long response and in the end decided that it wasnt' worth it. Chris (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Cockfighting causes more pain than StarWars. But I think that comparing Pokemon to SW is a somewhat more valid and interesting situation. I guess that I think Cockfighting is really absurdly bad for two reasons. One is because it promotes the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Well said. (...) I beg to differ here. How many people go to see Star Wars for the *snicker* storyline? Most everyone I know want to see the cool weapons, the cool starfighters, the cool battles, and the cool bad guys. How is this not (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? —Dave Schuler

(...) It depends what you're looking for in a storyline. Certainly some of the story is vapid, but as a redemption myth (both Han's and Vader's), the original trilogy overall has real worth. That's why, in itself, TPM is weaker than the original (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) What the--?! No one told me that before! Do you have proof? I demand proof! ;-) (...) Well, I concede that cockfighting as a real-life event is much worse than Star Wars as a fictional story. However, the original debate was comparing Pokemon (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Don't you believe it. He probably want's you to give up on the tooth fairy too. (...) I agree with this lots and lots. Chris (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Jorge Rodriguez

This debate over cockfighting makes me wish I had been to one when I lived at home. Jorge Rodríguez rodriguez.136@osu.edu (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) One word: Ewwww! <grins, ducks and runs> ++Lar (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Jorge Rodriguez

I think if I had gone to one I would understand the fascination. I always regreted not going to the bullfight when I was in Spain. I think it has to do with a built in bloodlust. I know Puerto Ricans have it. (...) Jorge Rodríguez (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Dave Schuler

(...) Yeah! Just this weekend cops in my town broke up three preschool cockfighting rings, so your concerns are well justified. In addition, some local kids induced a coyote to chase a road runner off a cliff, while a rabbit was seen to thump a puma (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, there you have it. (...) I am almost as uncomfortable with those icons as I am with Pokemon. I suspect that in those cases, children run the risk of identifying with the critters and behaving more violently than they might otherwise. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Eric Joslin

(...) {snip a bunch} If you guys aren't going to move the topic back to Lego, can you at least move it out of lugnet.general? Thanks, eric (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Jeff Thompson

(...) Well, I dunno. I suppose that to some small extent the Pokemon show does embody a bit of the cultural Japanese disdain towards animals (witness whaling), but it doesn't really strike me as cockfighting. The pokemon are uninjured in the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Anders Isaksson

Sproaticus skrev i meddelandet <396F38A3.88FCD4B5@io.com>... (...) The card game is quite playable. It depends a lot on chance, but careful, strategic thinking gives you a much better chance of winning. A game does not take very long (compare that (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) That is because they chop out anything to do with Japanese culture and anything that isn't G-rated. The end result is an absolutly awful show. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jul-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)