Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:09:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1682 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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?
Clever enough to balance our diets and clever enough to invent and operate a
food production system that can produce all the food (and more) that we need
without killing (well, I supose tractors do kill field mice and such, but at
least it's minimized and accidental (except for pesticide -- but I buy organic
when it's an option)) or causing pain.
> Is that true over the entire world (I'm asking that as a question,
> not a challenge - I don't know)?
Not as it stands. I believe that we (the industrialized nations) have the
resources to make it so, but we choose not to.
> What's wrong with eating meat if that is what we are adapted to doing[?]
Our adaptation doesn't enter into it, in my opinion. It is wrong because we
can afford for it to be wrong, and the fact that we _can_ subsist on a largely
carnivorous diet, doesn't change that.
> - 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
I agree. And the US might not be leading the nuclear non-proliferation effort
if we hadn't the experience of using them in war. And maybe I wouldn't have
really learned that bending people to my will through the use of force was
wrong if I hadn't done it. So we can be through with that unfortunate (no
matter how needed) stage of our development.
> Are non-human omnivores wrong/evil/immoral for eating meat?
My personal stance on this is that to be evil you have to understand your
choices, and in fact to have the choice. I don't begrudge carnivorous humans
their situation when they're forced by starvation into it. This is how I feel
toward cannibals too.
> In addition to weakness, please add taste (okay, so maybe that is a form of
> weakness).
It is. By the time you accept (which I understand you're not doing) that
eating meat is 'wrong' then to continue to do so because it tastes good must be
evil because one is weak or evil because one loves evil.
> I'm not a George (non-clone version) Bush fan, but the day he spoke
> out against broccoli I stood up and cheered! Blechh!
Weirdo. Have you only had it frozen and then boiled into paste? Fresh from
the garden either raw or steamed al dente, it is a treat from the gods!
> > 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.
Why on a species by species basis instead of judging individuals as such?
Isn't that the same as the kind of discrimination that we generlly accept as
being bad? (e.g. assuming that a black woman at the mall is obnoxious because
some other folks who look vaguely like her are?)
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).
I respect that. I have done it too, but I doubt that I ever will again. I've
never killed a mamal in order to eat it, but I prefer people who do that
instead of buying those packets of pink goo, too.
> I said seals, right? Wouldn't eat 'em.
Are seals particularly bright? I thought they were on par with cats, otters,
etc. But not as smart as racoons or pigs.
> 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.
You are proposing this as a hypothetical, or it actually happened to you?
> 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 think it's kind of a funny thing. I guess situational. Or maybe I just
don't give a darn if my life is on the line. I suppose it depends how you look
at it.
> > 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. ;-)
I guess that means you believe morals are dictated by your peers? Or just
being cute?
> > > We genetically are omnivores, not herbivores.
> >
> > So?
>
> So that's what we are genetically adapted to do.
We are genetically adapted to kill and eat our neighbors, and take their
posessions (wife, cattle, car, whatever), but that doesn't make it right.
> 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.
Agreed as above, and as such we would be wasting all that effort that we, as a
species, put into becoming this advanced if we didn't take advantage of our
ability to give up our life of crime.
> > 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.
I suppose anything 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.
Males, at least. It is clearly the case that males (for maximal genetic
proliferation) should boff everything they can. The same could be said for
females except that they have a more limited reproduction capacity and thus
need to make more sure that their mates are fit. I'm convinced that's why
women seem to care more about the quality of their hookups. I don't think
there is any genetic drive for them toward monogamy...it's just something
they're willing to trade for stable protection for their offspring - which is
the most important thing to them.
> > 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.
But hanging around isn't the best for seeding the populace. You are better off
banging away (so to speak) and tricking some one (or more) females into
believing that you're their protector in exchange for them mating only with
you.
For clarity, I'm not advocating this, merely suggesting it's the maximal
success strategy from the standpoint of gene dispersion. Oh, and you should
donate sperm too.
> > 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).
I guess. Like everything being debatable.
> Well, I was thinking along the lines of tossing the lobster in the pot
> directly, or following the guidlines of making him comatose first.
How do you do that?
> I only buy eggs from free-range chickens, even though they cost more. I wish • I
> had that option on more things.
Me too. I am arranging the future so that I'll herd goats to produce my own
cheese. I'll be substantially better then.
> > why do humans have the right to hunt deer?
>
> Because they are hungry?
So if I want to play, I have the right to steal your LEGO?
> Because if we don't the mountain lions will?
Because if I don't some other thug 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.
That's interesting. I've never understood this oft held philosophy. As if
merely by being a product of humans, the humans have all rights to them. By
the same logic, your parents have the right to kill and eat you...at least if
that was their intent from the get go.
> > > 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.
Yeah. This silly double standard is the result of the ward_of_the_state
mentality in which people (more notably liberals, but most people really) have
decided that other people don't have the clue required to make intelligent
decisions about the disposal of their property. This is bad for two reasons.
First it needlessly limits our self determination. And I believe that the less
you expect people to take care of themselves, the less they are capable. I
know that the more you expect of kids in the classroom, the more they can do.
> > > 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.
Which ones? And just because our faulty legal system prohibits it (or forces
to enforce it), doesn't mean that's how it ought to be.
> Interesting conversation.
I think so too.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
