Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:09:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1652 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > Here is where we diverge a bit. I'm not a vegetarian and never will be.
>
> Never? You allude further down to being close (at least) to buying in to the
> idea that you're rationallizing somewhere. Mightn't you change your mind? If
> not, why not? I am convinced that every person capable and willing to do the
> thinking will come to largely the same conclusion that that I have and decide
> that it's evil/wrong/immoral (take your pick) to eat meat when it is _so_
> clearly not needed.
I am equally convinced that anyone who every person who eats plants must
acknowledge the fundamental equality between vegetarianism and carnivorism
insofar as the both pertain to the consumption of (once) living (and, as I
explain below, sentient) matter, and titling vegetarianism "superior" is
arbitrary and inconsistent.
Eating anything but the minimum required to sustain oneself adequately
is "clearly not needed," yet we eat much more than that all the time.
> > I see it as OK to eat meat of non sentient creatures, and I see it as a
> > difference of kind, not degree.
>
> In the vernacular that I understand, sentient is taken to mean self-aware
> which leaves the issue a bit fuzzy. How self aware? In what senses? But
> actually it means to have sensation.
Be that as it may, I would ask you to define sensation. It has been
conclusively demonstrated that plants react to their environment, whether it's
something as simple as following the sun or as complicated as secreting a
particular chemical into the air when ants are chewing into bark. The latter,
in fact, is indicative of communication, in that trees (I'll have to double
check the species) nearby are able to produce a substance unfavorable to ants,
thereby protecting themselves specifically because they'd been warned by
another tree. Given these facts, how can one distinguish between animals'
sentience and that of plants; that is, how is it therefore morally less wrong
to eat plants than animals?
> What we are genetically a bunch of things that we should consider hurdles.
> There are many of those. We are told by our genes to protect our woman,
Do you have any actual sources to cite in this regard? From what I've read,
the genome product hasn't yet pointed out the "protect the woman" gene. Such
protectiveness could just as easily be explained as a result of environment
and upbringing rather than some kind of genetic hardwiring.
> In modern society with so much powerful infrastructure, it is downright
> _easy_ to not eat meat. So killing for food is clearly avoidable.
Do you only eat living plants, and are they still alive after you've eaten
them? I'm not trying to be absurdly nit-picky, but it can readily be argued
that the line you've drawn between plants and animals is as ill-defined as the
line others have drawn between people and animals.
> > I'd rather we just grew beef and chicken muscle in vats but we're
> > not there yet.
That's what we do now, while it's still attached to the cows and chickens!
> > Heck, my cousin the molecular geneticist (or genetic biologist, I can never
> > keep it straight) has been causing pain to fruit flies for 20 years now,
>
> Can you prove to me that drosophila feel pain? My understanding is that they
> do not; but I could be wrong.
Heh. I don't know that I could prove to you that *I* feel pain, but I'm
pretty sure about it. Interestingly, I've read that the octopus has a
specially-protected status somewhere (the UK?) due to its apparently
sophisticated response to pain stimuli.
> > We're not talking about sentient things when we talk about chickens and
> > roosters, though.
>
> As I pointed out, we are. What exactly marks the difference between us and
> them?
But as I pointed out, your definition of sentience arguably applies equally
to plants. What exactly marks the difference between us and the vegetables
you eat?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
149 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
|
|
|
|
