 | | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) Then why bother responding if it is pointless and tiresome? I'd rather you continue ignoring me or address the other point. Why don't people respond? Because I'm bringing up something that directly refutes their claims and they feel (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) You forgot to include yourself. I have connected my comments to the movie, and its implications in respect to the entire Lego line, as have you. You are attempting to dismiss others viewpoints as "political" (and I only use the term because (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) In at least one case, the lack of response is entirely because that person (me) finds the entire debate pointless and tiresome. It is a non-issue. Further responses (such as the one I am currently constructing) are a waste of breath, because (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:Fz54Kp.E62@lugnet.com... (...) broader (...) still (...) two (...) minifigs (...) do (...) Alright, I'm beginning to understand you now. (...) be (...) what (...) Yup. The issue of 'political (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) I've posted my experience on this a number of times: curiously there's rarely a response. Wade through the latest (down around the middle): (URL) your supposing that kids apply all races to the figs rather than perceiving them as NOT (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) Certainly it is great that TLC has in some ways opened its eyes to a broader demographic, but it is unfortunate that certain spectres from their past still linger. Because minifigs have persisted more or less unchanged for over two decades, it (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) Well, is it really if we consider the target audience? I've said it before, I'll say it again: as long as the kids seem happy with the minifigs, as long as the kids are able to use their own imagination to bring diversity to the world of Lego (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:Fz4z2L.G18@lugnet.com... (...) and (...) in (...) one (...) Ok, I see this now where I didn't quite see it before, and will refrain from using that phrase in the future. It was not a conscious (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) "Race card" has connotations well in excess of the bounds of this debate and should be employed with caution. Typically the term is used in situations in which the implication of racism is perceived to yield a result positive to one side's (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:Fz4rAo.HHF@lugnet.com... (...) literature. (...) its (...) you (...) the (...) may (...) But what does that matter? That was done in the past, and this is today. The question is, how will (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) Yes, but that was because minifigs, macrofigs, or any type of figs didn't exist then. At least for me. :-O (...) Here is the crux of the problem. The lack of diversity in minifigs IS a political message. You may agree with that message, you (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
"Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message news:Fz4qw1.FyI@lugnet.com... (...) draw (...) that (...) (for (...) Viable alternative. In all sincerity, I have watched LUGNET for the past few days be filled with what I feel is senseless (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) No one in any argument here has suggested that skin color has any effect on a person's human-ness. (...) **snip of several recent, anecdotal examples** These are fine, of course, and it's great to see that Lego has opened its marketing to a (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
(...) A lot of people have said this, but I'd be interested to see them actually draw lines and point out these so-called "factions". There seem to be only two that really exist- those who are discussing something they find interesting (for whatever (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
|
Hey everybody... After reading a few of the highlights from the recent debates on adding different color minifigs into the Lego product line, I thought I'd offer a few words. I have a major concern with the discussions and the attitude portrayed. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Racial politics in LEGO (Endless debates in LUGNET about race would be a good title too!)
|
|
Yo nigga, what the deal? Just to clarify, I emailed Brad Justus a day or two ago and asked him if he might check out the thread that begins with "Who's feelin' the black pack?" when he's got the time. He's yet to reply, but rest assured that as soon (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Racial politics in LEGO (Endless debates in LUGNET about race would be a good title too!)
|
|
Jason, (...) Usually, when I see this, it does mean it, but I digress, I am rather sick of this discussion to begin with. (...) I have little faith in reiterating this discussion about Lando and Panaka for the 5th, 6th, 7th, etc. time. I am sick to (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Put the issue to bed (was: who's feelin the black pack?)
|
|
(...) Umm, yeah. That would be it. And the minifigs are meant to represent the characters, the same way the actors did. Now, if someone re-makes "Star Wars" in 30 years, and they happen to make the controversial move of casting a black man as Han (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Put the issue to bed (was: who's feelin the black pack?)
|
|
(...) Since you were kind enough to point out that minifigs are not real people, I will return the favor by reminding you that everyone who provides the visualizations of Han, Leia, and Luke are in fact from Earth, and in any case you're missing my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Put the issue to bed (was: who's feelin the black pack?)
|
|
(...) Why? How do we know that Han Solo is white and Lando Calrissian is black? Just because that's the skin colors of Harrison Ford and Billy Dee Williams? (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Responsible Hunting
|
|
(...) 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: Put the issue to bed (was: who's feelin the black pack?)
|
|
First of all, Han, Leia and Luke represent... HAN, LEIA AND LUKE. Far as I can tell, Han is a Correllian; Leia, from Dantooine; Luke, from Tatooine. And that's just the PLANETS. If they happen to be "white," then so be it. Greedo happens to be (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Recent Events, etc.
|
|
See (URL) -- Bryan "Christian Gemuenden" <gech1@t-online.de> wrote in message news:FyzF6B.DGA@lugnet.com... (...) When (...) new (...) it (...) (IIRC), (...) me (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Recent Events, etc.
|
|
Hi Bryan, I agree with you in many points. However, that's not the reason I reply. When I carefully read your posting, I fell over the following: (...) So, what excactly do you mean with: "the Statue of Liberty" ? Is that a new set or what? Well, of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Recent Events, etc.
|
|
This originally started as an opinion piece on the recent events with the "the list." (I know I'm stepping up to my turn to beat the dead horse...) But in the end, this turned into a larger work that ends up touching on the state of the hobby. This (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Space Weaponry
|
|
Duane, I think you are right about everything you said earlier. I have had fun (Alot of fun in fact) debating this issue with you and I guess we should come to a closing. It's nice to have somebody that actually cares as much as I do about Lego. By (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: who's feelin the black pack?
|
|
(...) using (...) that (...) Still can't say I've ever heard the term albedo applied to skin tone. Probably because albedo derives from the latin albus meaning white (defining skin in terms of whiteness is something of a lost cause immediately). (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: who's feelin the black pack?
|
|
(...) oops :) well, spelling has never been my strong suit, but the term I was using is correct. I know what you meant by "value" and the technical measure of that aspect of skin tone is the albedo, ie: how much light it reflects vs how much is (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Space Weaponry
|
|
(...) use (...) and (...) Well Mikohly, (...) I don't understand the last sentence. What do you mean by "template"? Could you clarify it a little for me? (...) Who's insecure? I'm comfortable with the shoes I'm wearing. (...) Only the child will (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Space Weaponry
|
|
(...) to (...) to (...) Well you see Duane, what this conversation originally was pointing out was the distinguishment between guns and other objects. It would be great to have kids be able to create their own guns and stuff. I'm just saying that (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Space Weaponry
|
|
(...) firearms (...) was (...) We already have a society where guns are considered acceptable. I don't want to re-enforce LEGO's edorsement of that attitude by buying those products which include ready-made guns and reward them (LEGO) by filling (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Space Weaponry
|
|
(...) Why not just buy the sets and sell the guns on eBay or Brickbay or something? Just wondering, ~Mark (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Responsible Hunting
|
|
(...) 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 (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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: Pricing on Lego Sets
|
|
(...) Whereas what I'd like to see would be one base price across the world, with realistic country by country prices, and S@H making it explicit how much above the base price is due to shipping costs to that country, and how much above the base (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.org.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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 (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
(...) I personally think our bodies NEED many trace elements and proteins in meat that just aren't in soy and other beans. I would rather risk cancer from seared meat than risk a lifetime of depletion of trace elements that MAY affect my memory (and (...) (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?")
|
|
(...) 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?")
|
|
(...) 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: 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
I always enjoyed the AWrinkle In Time trilogy by Madeleine L'Engle. It's sort of Sci-Fi, but without a lot of tech stuff. ~Mark (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
(...) Great subject! My favorite kids books (many I still have from when I was a kid)... Narnia, fist and foremost, especially The Last Battle all the Swallows and Amazons books Many Rudyard Kipling books, esp Puck of Pook's Hill (*still* gives me (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
some of my favorites: Bridge to Terabithia - by Katherine Paterson Where the Wild Things Are - by Maurice Sendak The Giving Tree - by Shel Silverstein I also liked the Chronicles of Narnia.. but i haven't read them in ages. Bridge to Terabithia and (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Harry Potter and young people's books
|
|
All those strange permutations of debate based off the Harry Potter books becoming a Lego line. Which leads into... The actual Harry Potter books. My wife bought it for my son (9) to read, but he seems to have stopped. Having some time to kill, I (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
(...) I'll agree-- I've been quietly lurking around the past few weeks ANYWAY, but this debate has certainly intreuged me... Just got a bit much to wade through... From the outset, I'll give my general feeling... I don't mind eating animals. (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Plastic Trays
|
|
(...) The clear ones and at least some of the non-clear ones are #2 PETE (same plastic as soda bottles). I've been contributing the clear ones to the bottle recycling bins (though I suspect they wouldn't pick them up curbside since they don't look (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
|
Yes, Yes... That hunting/eating/cockfighting thread is huge and hard to navigate. However Dave Schuler said this: " If you can produce an animal that generally demonstrates free will, I won't eat it. " which I think is the crux. I've been watching (...) (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?")
|
|
(...) 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: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
|
(...) 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: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
|
(...) 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: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
|
(...) 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: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
|
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: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
|
(...) 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: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
|
(...) 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?")
|
|
(...) 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?")
|
|
(...) 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?")
|
|
(...) <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?")
|
|
(...) 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?")
|
|
(...) 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?")
|
|
(...) 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?")
|
|
(...) 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?")
|
|
<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?")
|
|
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?")
|
|
(...) <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: *Native* (was "Re: Future Wild West Possibilities")
|
|
"Franklin W. Cain" <fwcain@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FrsKE4.B4v@lugnet.com... (...) Hear, Hear I agree with you completely (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What happened?
|
|
(...) But if it's blue, it might be on sale. Yuck! Chris (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?")
|
|
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: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
|
(...) 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: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
|
(...) 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: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
|
(...) 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))
|
|
(...) 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: MF at etoys.com <snipped>
|
|
In lugnet.market.shopping, Larry Pieniazek writes: *** much editing (...) This is pretty clear. Either you are a first time customer or your not. Whether eToys should have some different checking mechanism that just checking the email address is up (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| |
| | Re: MF at etoys.com <snipped>
|
|
(...) True, most people have multiple email addresses. That's one correct statement in the paragraph, anyway. Let's go to the eToys site, shall we: (URL) from that page (with some snippage of complete sentences...) Restrictions: This offer is valid (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jul-00, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Slightly OT - Microsoft Train Simulator
|
|
(...) Ya, "best-selling" because they give a copy away with every PC Gateway sells, seems like. ++Lar (24 years ago, 27-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Dinosaur Color Scheme
|
|
(...) The biggest terrestic sauropsid species today is the Komodo Dragon...... (...) the (...) variations in (...) Yes, because it is a selective advantage for poisonous animals to let their possible predators know that they are poisonous.... I (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How big is to big?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Herzberg (...) getting a new $1.2 billon 99 gate terminal for northwest (24 years ago, 27-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
