Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2001 03:43:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1167 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I agree. My "stupid" comment was meant more to distinguish between cows and,
> say, dolphins, which I don't want to eat *because* they're too smart.
> (potentially... sentient!) Cows, Turkeys, Chickens, even Pigs I am fine
> with. (although I'm a bit shaky on pigs thanks to the last thread about meat)
Yes, stay away from pig meat. The Jews and Moslems had the right idea
centuries ago.
> I agree that any animal that has pain receptors ought to be spared as much
> pain as is practical, and that pain includes dirty environments, cruel
> treatment, and needless pain in the death process, whether that animal is a
> prey animal or not.
Exactly, why be cruel?
> > Although I am an Atheist, I would support any notion that
> > all God's creatures deserve respect and fairness.
>
> Agreed except I don't care whose creatures they are.
God, Zeus, Budda, Shiva... fill in the blank.
<snipped some stuff>
> But these all have bystander effects and therefore are morally wrong for
> good and sufficient reasons whether or not they're stupid. Therefore
> irrelevant to this discussion.
Well, I find that odd. Why is it morally wrong when bystanders are affected
but not so if it's just the individual? So doing cocaine alone in your home
is okay? What about looking at child porn? Is that okay too? My point is to
consider the related factors associated with the product. Forget about the
act itself. If cocaine is principally made in the jungle by forced and
barbaric child labor, it is morally wrong to purchase or possess the
product. I don't want to get into the evil of using the drugs so let's leave
that topic alone.
> > Just being lazy and doing nothing is wrong (sloth).
>
> Disagree. Being lazy is the height of virtue, if it's a constructive
> laziness. Edison was supremely lazy and the world is a vastly better place
> for it.
Let me restate that... I mean a lifetime of laziness, apathy and sloth, not
the "lazy" cool off or kickback time after a busy day or week. Also, I don't
consider play or creative/artistic endevours as lazy. Laziness is more of a
lack of initiative and self motivation especially when there are necessary
tasks at hand. I extend this to social laziness as well. Paying taxes is not
enough. Working for your own piece of cheese is not enough. You must give to
your community, not be a leech. Ideally, if you give to your community it
gives back. However, industrialism killed that noble ethic and people are
competing and stealing from each other and not cooperating. I think that's
relevant to this thread.
> > I think it
> > is morally wrong to eat more than your share (gluttony).
>
> Disagree. What is my "share"? My share is what I can afford to buy, and if I
> want to be foolish and overeat, that's stupidity on my part but not a moral
> failing in and of itself.
Believe what you wish, but that's 100% bullsh*t as far as I'm concerned. You
honestly believe because you can afford more, you get to eat more and
overeating is not a moral failing? I think if you're smart enough to know
that it's overeating yet you still do so, that's a definite moral failing
(in addition to stupidity). What are morals? They're a human social concept,
written and unwritten codes and laws, many of which are inherent in nature.
There are some universal morals and one of them happens to be not taking
more than you need. However, modern society has embraced greed, gluttony and
vanity as virtures. We idolize and immortalize people for their material
wealth. I look at these young men on my corner with their gold chains, hot
rods and wicked attitudes and I see a failure in teaching morals.
> Else you're setting yourself up to judge all self
> destructive behaviours as wrong *because they're self destructive*. Or are
> you saying that it's morally wrong to be stupid? There is a trap in that
> line of reasoning which I've stumbled over myself...
And what is stupid? Do we use the Forrest Gump approach here? It's only a
trap if I think I know everything or don't care what other's think. Well, I
think I do know what I'm talking about here, but I don't know everything.
Most important though is that I do care and want all people to succeed
together, but not on each other's backs.
> > People eat what
> > they want, not what they need (greed).
>
> Disagree. I NEED only 2000 calories of rice and peanut butter and a vitamin
> pill a day. But I'll eat Godiva and Haagen Daaz whenever I feel like it and
> can afford to do so and not feel in the least bit guilty about it.
And I wouldn't say that's morally wrong so long as there's a practice of
careful moderation. If someone is overweight and overfat, they would be wise
not to eat Godiva and Haagen Daz (130 mg of cholesterol per serving). To
deliberately go for the gusto and ignore the consequences is reckless and
will lead to health problems. Trust me, my father was a smoker and had a
penchant for fatty foods. He suffered a heart attack before I was born and
lived on a thread until a stroke killed him when I was young. My mother and
me were left in dire straits. In my opinion, being reckless is a moral failing.
> I reject the notion of greed altogether, basically, as an explanation or as
> a thing to feel guilty about. My fair share is what I've rightly earned, and
> if it is more, or less, than what someone else has, tough.
Rightly earned, yes, but never to be taken. I believe in gain but never at
another's expense.
> > It is morally wrong to NOT consider WHERE your food or drugs come from. Most
> > meat in America comes from suffering animals raised in filth and cruelity
> > and given a slow, painful, lingering death.
> I'll buy "some" but I'm not sure I'm convinced it is "most".
"Most" is pretty appropriate here, though. If you're unconvinced, perhaps
you should dig a little more. It is to your benefit, believe me.
<snipped cocaine info>
> Sounds like we need to legalise it to remove the profit from doing it in
> secret in a jungle.
But then we get into the argument about the immorality of drug abuse.
> Are those kids held prisoner, or are they doing it
> because their country is screwed up and there aren't any other economic
> opportunities open to them?
It's done because they can. Lot's of countries use forced child labor and we
buy their products without question. I say don't contribute. Would we want
our kids to labor in sweat shops for 12 hours? We do our part by not buying
the product.
>
> You're nibbling at the symptoms, when systemic change is what is needed. Do
> you see what I mean?
A nibble here and there. Change begins with the individual. We need a
revolution of thought and a break from this industrialism.
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I agree. My "stupid" comment was meant more to distinguish between cows and, say, dolphins, which I don't want to eat *because* they're too smart. (potentially... sentient!) Cows, Turkeys, Chickens, even Pigs I am fine with. (although I'm a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
