 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) Okay, but my point was that if you equate humans (of any group) with animals (also, presumably, of any group), then you would see no difference between eating people and eating "animals." Thus any meat consumption would be equivalent to eating (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) that's (...) Right. And that is, in fact, what I believe. But I assumed by "full cannibal" you meant that I would eat human but no other meat. That idea can't be logically derived from what I wrote. Were I to resort to eating any animals (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Just to pursue this to a morbid conclusion, you would therefore have no compunctions against sexual relations with any animal you found suitably attractive, and you would likewise be as willing to donate an organ to any animal (antigen issues (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | OK, hopefully the kiddies are kept away from l.o-t.d (...) would (...) I would apply the same standards that I do to humans...we must both be willing and interested. There is nothing wrong with inter-species copulation when both (all?) parteners are (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) I think that there is a real inherent difference between eating human flesh and eating other animal flesh, because there is a difference between being Fully Animal, and Merely Animal. To explain: The fact that humans possess all of the basic (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | I'm rearranging here and there, not to mislead, but to address things in the order that I chose... (...) If you expect to be flamed by me, guess again. First, you are expressing eloquently a very normal belief. It's wrong (at least for me), but I'm (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I expected an imminent flame from you...I was merely acknowledging that some people following this thread will no doubt vehemently disagree with me. (...) I'm not sure that I follow your question...do (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) being (...) I mean, why does the difference between being fully animal and being merely animal have anything to do with who should be able to victimize whom? (...) I think that murder "is an unfortuante part of the reality of this world" too. (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —James Simpson
|
| | | | | (...) I'm still not sure that I follow you. My answer, if I understand the question correctly, is that I believe that it is a moral evil to kill animals gratuitously. (No doubt we'll find some common ground here, but disagree as to what exactly (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | James, upon reading through your response to my last longish note on this it struck me that I was kind of beating the same topic, and that I sounded antagonistic to you as a religious person. While I disagree with you, and it makes it harder to (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | (...) me (...) of (...) Christopher: I haven't been offended by how you have expressed your views; in fact, I enjoy a friendly clash of arms. (...) I believe that gratuitous killing includes killing for sport, but I'm not prepared to say that (...) (24 years ago, 30-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Why not do away witht the old testament then - as part of scripture, only - obviously it would retain historical value. (...) Uh...no. I misread and now feel foolish. :-) (Actually, yeah...yeah...that's the ticket, you can catch him at the (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why not do away witht the old testament then - as part of scripture, only - obviously it would retain historical value. (...) Uh...no. I misread and now feel foolish. :-) (Actually, yeah...yeah...that's the ticket, you can catch him at the (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It still has enormous theological value; the difference is that it is now read and understood in light of our fuller understanding of God as compiled in the New Testament. (...) Ok...I concede the point that it was inconsistent to include (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) you (...) Nope. I would chose the human option, but not because I believe that it is capable of experiencing a "Better existence." I'm familiar with it, I know it's OK, I'd go with the known over the unknown in this case (unless I had reason (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The nature of being (was Aids, Vegetarianism etc.) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Even if rights were a fiction, I'd agree with you that to avoid causing suffering is better. But, fundamentally, from a bedrock philosophical basis, we have no ultimate way to condemn evil if creatures do not objectively have a right to (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | (...) Correction to a poorly-worded statement; I meant to say: The afterlife will be a poorer place if it lacks animal life, but I believe that animals will be present. James (24 years ago, 30-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | (...) I had a professor in college who has made arragements to be buried six inches deep in a forest in VA. I know it doesn't have the same effect as your wishes but it sounds like its legal. -chris (24 years ago, 2-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Hmm.. What if you lightning subsequently sets fire to the woods where you're hypothetically dropped? Or if a landslide buries you? Burying and burning may be creepy, but cholera (for example) and the stench of rotting corpses trouble me, too. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) Well, I guess I won't care...I'll be dead. I mean, nothing's perfect. (...) I'm pretty sure that the stench of rotting corpses doesn't trouble vultures and heyenas; how about if you just let them have me instead of trying to do the work (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
