Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 May 2000 15:55:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
952 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > I don't think so. By my above statements: I could be a full cannibal-but I'd
> > also have to think that eating other animals was OK, just not as tasty. Or I
> > could eat anything that I wanted to - people, veggies, beef, whatever - that's
> > still in keeping with my expressed logic.
>
> 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 human flesh.
>
> > Or I could be a full vegetarian, eschewing all meat intake equally.
>
> Just make sure to eschew before you swallow.
>
> Dave!
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 characteristics of other mammals
(and indeed, many other forms of animal life), e.g., similar organs, nervous
system, respiration, etc., etc., makes us Fully Animal. In other words, we
possess all of the traits that identifies us, and puts us in the same class as
other similar life-forms. We are Fully Mammal, and indeed Fully Animal. But,
the there is a difference:
While we possess the requisite traits that put us in Kingdom Animalia, we also
possess some traits that me us distinctively different from all other animals
(the this includes our most intelligent kin, such as dolphins, primates,
elephants, portia spiders, etc...); we undeniably possess levels of
intelligence, awareness, emotion...and transcendental qualities that no other
animals on Earth are capable of. Humans are indeed Fully Animal, but not Merely
Animal. I think that this is a powerful argument as to why humans possess the
greatest inherent value of any species on Earth - which is not to say that every
other living thing does not possess inherent "rights" that must be respected to
some degree - but that in the moral equation, when competing values must be
weighed in matters of survival, humans deserve greater consideration.
James, The Politically-Incorrect Human-Centric Villain Who Just Zipped and
Fastened His Flame-Retardent Suit.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) 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)
|
228 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
