 | | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
(...) react (...) Well, that's a perfect example of why I don't take that tack. Even if it's true, we don't gain by accepting no free will. And if it's wrong, we lose a _huge_ amount (like everything that humanity is) by assuming the contrary (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
(...) eaters (...) It's not think...it's know. And I can live with that. (...) I think that is foolish and unrealistic. (...) Our, who? Not mine. I lost weight, gained muscle, seemed to improve my immunodefense and became generally more healthy. 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?")
|
|
(...) 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: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
|
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: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
(...) Taking this tack, why the heck would it matter if you ate meat or not, and why would eating meat be evil, if nothing we do matters to the total reaction? (...) It is, though "generally", there are some "universal" morals that "most" humans (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
(...) I'd have to agree with the majority - it's arrogant as hell to call meat eaters evil just because you think we don't have to do it. I assert we DO have to, our bodies work better metabolically with meat in the diet. And I DO have to eat meat (...) (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?")
|
|
(...) 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: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
|
(...) 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: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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: Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
(...) It won the Newberry award. The Caldecott award is for illustrated books. I have yet to go wrong by reading a Newberry Award or Newberry Honor Award book. (...) my (...) Gosh, I'll have to get it and an industrial grade hanky at the same time, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
(...) I'd certainly go for the latter... However, I don't think that either gains any sort of advantage nor affords any loss. That is, unless you take up the sadly pessimistic view that "nothing I do matters", and turn into a lazy couch potato as a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure this is a Newberry or Caldecot winner. (...) To this very day, I cry if I read the giving tree. I always feel silly, and my son (almost six) doesn't get it, but that's OK. I bet he will someday. Chris (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
(...) I think it the freedom to exert some control over how you biochemically react to stimuli. The opposite is to assume we're part of a complex chemical reaction racing forward into the future and what we do, as a product of that reaction, doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
(...) Yup, sorry. It has basically imploded due to the weight and complexity. (...) OK, I happen to disagree...maybe...but I'll play along. (...) I have been frustrated, but didn't think I was hostile. If I'm wrong, I apologize to the victim(s). (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
(...) Why is this a "debate" topic? Seems to me personal preference is just that, preference, not a debatable thing. So this thread belongs in .fun. Can we debate that? :-) (...) I would go with the Heinlein juveniles as a group. "Have spacesuit, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
(...) favorite (...) The (...) fun (...) Another Narnia fan. Haven't gotten past the first book - but I have the rest sitting on a shelf. Just always seems like there is something else I'd rather read. Bruce (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
(...) Bridge (...) very (...) I read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to my son a few years ago. It was okay, but that was about it. The Hobbit was much more to my taste. Where the Wild Things Are is a great illustrated book. Loved it. I've (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
(...) The darn thing is I think I read it when I was in 6th grade, but I don't remember anything beyond it involved a tesseract and that it began with the classic Snoopy line: It was a dark and stormy night. Guess I'll just have to read it again. (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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)
|
