Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:54:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1599 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: • (snipping freely if I don't have a point to make)
> > 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 expect that some of those that figure that out, won't
> change out of weakness, but most of those people won't have gotten that far in
> the first place. So anyway, I think that never is a bit bold.
Why is it clearly not needed? Because we are now clever enough to balance our
diets properly such that we can get all the nurtients we need without resorting
to meat? Is that true over the entire world (I'm asking that as a question,
not a challenge - I don't know)? What's wrong with eating meat if that is what
we are adapted to doing - it's debateable we could be at the point of asking
the question in the first place if humans somewhere along the line didn't eat
meat (sorry if this has been addressed earlier - it's hard to back-track once
the discussion tree is reduced to "dots"). Are non-human omnivores
wrong/evil/immoral for eating meat?
After having said that, you are right about the never! :-O
In addition to weakness, please add taste (okay, so maybe that is a form of
weakness). I'm not a George (non-clone version) Bush fan, but the day he spoke
out against broccoli I stood up and cheered! Blechh!
>
> > 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. You're sometimes a stickler for correct
> definitions, so let's have it on this one too. ;-)
Thankfully, I'm not Larry and continue to be hazy. I must admit the further up
the intelligence scale (species, not individual, to deal with the a point you
make elsewhere) the less willing I am to eat it. Chimp? Borderline
cannibalism. Dolphin? Nope. Seal? Nope. Dog? Ultimate in betrayal of
man's best friend! Nope. Chicken? StOOpid. Yes. Parrot? Nope (it's hard
to eat something that can have a conversation with you). Fish? StOOpid. Yes
(and at least I can say that I caught these and prepared them myself and they
were not a packet of unrecognizable pink goo). And I follow the Indian
(amerind, native american, vague animism) route of thanking it for feeding me
and my family and it really bugs me to waste it once I have taken its life.
Cat? Remember what I said about the intelligence scale of the species rather
than the specific individual? I guess my really stOOpid cat is off the hook.
I said seals, right? Wouldn't eat 'em. Okay, I was stOOpid, joined Ernest
Shakelton's crew of the Endurance, and find myself marooned on a frozen island
with nothing to eat except the odd seal and penguin. I eat 'em and live? Or
don't (but that Killer Whale puts on a few pounds of blubber and they get eaten
anyway)? Is evil/immoral/wrong situational or absolute?
>
> I understand you to mean that because chickens have cognitive abilities below • a
> certain line, it is OK for you to kill and eat them. Right? And I believe
> that cows also fall under that line, right? I think that given the time I
> could pretty sharply prove that some humans are dumber than cows. I don't • mean
> this in a cute sense, but only in reference to severely retarded people. Is • it
> morally OK for you to kill and eat those people?
If I was from a cannibalistic culture, it might be. ;-)
>
> > We genetically are omnivores, not herbivores.
>
> So?
So that's what we are genetically adapted to do. High protein diets allowed us
to spend less time stuffing enough food down our gullets just to stay alive and
instead spend some time thinking about whether we should or not.
>
> 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, but • we
> don't think it's OK to beat the guy who eyeballs her or even makes rude
> comments.
Both the points you make in that last sentence can be argued either way - which
I'm not going to get into beyond noting that it is open to debate.
> We are told by our genes to copulate with just about any member of
> the opposite sex that will let us,
Are you speaking of males or females? Genetically, we have different interests
on that point.
> but for a variety of social stability
> issues, we've (well, most of us have) imposed willfull control on ourselves.
Genetic, too. If you hang around (as the male) you better insure the survival
of your offsrping.
> We are told by our genes to degenerate over time and have a hard-line
> termination date, but we're sinking fortunes into figureing out how to
> circumvent old-age as a cause of death. And that's a good thing. So what we
> were is history. What we can be is my concern. And I believe that we can be
> better than we were.
"Better" is a matter of opinion (not that I'm saying I don't agree with you on
what that may be).
>
> > Again, I support eating meat. I want my animals killed in as pain free a way
> > as possible.
>
> Actually, I'm much more concerned with their lives being cruelty free than
> their deaths. (Though both would be preferred.) To see why, answer the
> following question:
>
> Would you rather live for twenty years, and be shot in the head, or live for
> forty in a 2x2x6 foot cage while being fed the same bad food every day and
> being anally raped avery couple months?
Well, I was thinking along the lines of tossing the lobster in the pot
directly, or following the guidlines of making him comatose first.
I only buy eggs from free-range chickens, even though they cost more. I wish I
had that option on more things.
My parrot's cage is 2x3x4. Uh-oh. I'll let him out and give him some grapes
when I get home. :-)
I won't eat him in 40 year though. At least not without barbeque sauce
(OOooooOOOooooooo).
> I agree with your implied 'obviously not' stance. OTOH, why do humans have • the
> right to hunt deer?
Because they are hungry? Because if we don't the mountain lions will? Since
the deer are rare, and the mountain lions rarer (in SoCal at least), I'd rather
eat something that would not have had a life unless it had been raised for me
to eat, but that's my morality.
> > A further (tangential) thought experiment for you... if you have complete
> > ownership of your body, can you sell parts of it off? Certainly (I should be
> > able to sell a kidney on the open market to the highest bidder if I want).
>
> Agreed.
This one has lots of interesting permutations. Donate a kidney to your
brother? That's okay, even noble! Buy off some poor person's kidney because
he is desperate? Good luck.
>
> > Can
> > you sign a contract to sell your services for money? Certainly (we all do • that
> > today).
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Can that contract be in force 24 hours a day? Certainly (consider a
> > first year resident at a hospital, his time is NOT his own to dispose of as • he
> > sees fit, he is always on call).
>
> I think it should be possible, but I think the Army is a better example,
> residents can just walk away.
>
> > Can it have an indefinite duration? Seems
> > reasonable (although this isn't known in real life).
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Haven't you then just sold yourself into slavery?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Is that enforcable?
>
> In the US, or in Libertopia? No (conditionally) to the former, yes to the
> latter. OTOH, we're slaves of the state already, so I think the reason that
> the US won't let us sign into slavery is that they already own us.
You can't sign away certain rights (at least in California), i.e. a contract is
not necessarily enforcable even if all parties agree to it.
Gotta go. Interesting conversation.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
