Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:41:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4080 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > What is it that makes someone conceited for making such a
> > > judgement, and what is it that makes someone NOT conceited for making that
> > > same judgement?
> >
> > We may be viewed as being conceited for passing judgement on another
> > culture. But if, say, it is to protect lives- that it is worth being called
> > conceited. There is a world of difference between that and passing judgement
> > on an individual for having, say, no dietary constraint or being gay.
>
> By referencing the dietary constraint issue, are you talking about
> my ethical stance on vegetarianism?
No. Not at all. I meant consumption levels. I used to share an office with
a guy who has utter contempt for anyone who is more than a pound overweight,
gay or a Catholic(1). I was thinking of him when I wrote the text. He lives
in the USA (Wisconsin) now, whenever I speak with him I get a long diatribe
about the state of the American diet.
Scott A
(1)His views were largely religious based. His parents are former members of
the Free Church of Scotland (aka Wee Free).
> You are claiming that there is a
> difference between protecting lives and dietary restriction, but my dietary
> restriction does protect lives. So I'm not sure I follow you.
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
244 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
|
|
|
|
