Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:03:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1679 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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:
> >
> > 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.
So it is only now that it is immoral, and not in previous generations? Or was
it a necessary immorality all along? Hmmmmm (I'm pondering this, by the way -
the questions are just questions).
>
> > 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 if their culture chooses to retain traditional values and practices and
doesn't wish to import our values (and produce). Are they immoral or wrong?
>
> > 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.
Being able to afford it being "wrong" (i.e. having another option) and it
actually being wrong are not necessarily the same thing. What makes it wrong?
>
> > - 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.
Yup, the sad thing is that without the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
worse things probably would have happened.
> 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.
Nuclear warfare and basic sustenance are two different things. I'm not
convinced you can draw a parallel between the two. I do understand what you
are trying to get at: just because we got to point B through point A doesn't
mean we have to keep going through Point A everytime we want to get some place.
But at the same time, we need to define WHY we want to bypass point A, not
merely point out that we the capablity of doing so.
>
> > 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.
Seems reasonable to me.
> I don't begrudge carnivorous humans
> their situation when they're forced by starvation into it. This is how I feel
> toward cannibals too.
Cannibals virtually always eat other humans for ritualistic reasons
(sympathetic magic and the like). They don't do it simply to satisfy hunger.
>
> > 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.
Ahhhh, now you may have me (or I may have myself, because I have pondered this
one before). Notice I never mentioned pigs on my list? Now, they aren't the
smartest thing in the world, but are they truly stOOpid?. I may be willing to
slaughter a fish or a chicken, but am I willing to slaughter a pig (beyond
simple squeemishness)? I don't have the answer to that one yet, beyond they
currently fall into the category that they wouldn't have had a life if it
wasn't for someone to eat. A good friend of mine has crossed all mammals off
his list (he'll still eat fish and poultry). I may change my mind, which is
specifically why I agree with your "Never?"
>
> > 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!
Hurl. Puke. Vomit. Smother it with cheese, steam it fresh, I don't care. It
tastes singularly awful and doesn't digest well (the taste that keeps on
giving). Zuccini rates lower than broccoli (tastes awful, and my stomach
doesn't like it even more).
You can see why converting me has some built in problems.
>
> > > 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?
Avoids mistakes in judgement. Not that I'm unsure that my current cat is
stOOpid (if pleasant), but my previous cat was very smart. As a group, they
have crossed over the line that I have drawn.
> 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?)
No. I'm making an error in the prospected food's favor, not against it.
>
> 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 sometimes wonder about our urbanization and isolation from nature. Eating
pink goo from a plastic tray that we barbeque into a hamburger gives you no
appreciation of where this food comes from or what it was. How many people
don't understand how gloriously sleek and dynamic tuna are? Dumb as a rock,
but those little cans become a level of ignorance. People understand better
when they could see the actual fish at the fishmarket. I suppose it's about
understanding the choices that we are making.
>
> > 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.
Uh-oh. There are those darn pigs again. Oh alright, I knew the example I was
going to make, so I threw seals in there for purposes of the Shakelton
expedition. I hadn't really considered them one way or another as food. Most
sea mammals are resonably bright.
>
> > 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?
Illustrative of a real event that I could not have taken part in. Ernest
Shakelton was an antarctic explorer in the early 1900s. In the expedition in
question, his ship (the Endurance) was trapped in pack ice and eventually
crushed. They escaped through horrific conditions in small boats to an
isolated island, where the bulk of the crew had to remain. They survived by
slaughtering every penguin and seal that blundered on shore that they could
(and some wrote how much they came to hate that relentless slaughter).
>
> > 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 pondered this at the time I was reading the Endurance expedition account
(not to mention the fate of sled dogs in english expeditions). I came up with
if it was situational, then I'm fooling myself if I have a taboo against eating
whatever in the first place? I don't have a definitive answer, I'm afraid.
>
> > > 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?
Morals are usually dictated by your peers in ANY society. It's okay to eat
that guy (tribal enemy) that you just killed because you (ostensibly) get an
advantage by doing so.
Okay, be that as it may: Busted! I was primarily being cute, but it really is
something to consider (even if only to reject).
>
> > > > 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.
No, that's not hard-wired in. Your digestive system and nutrional requirements
are.
>
> > 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.
Depends on whose definition of crime you are using.
>
> > > 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.
Yes, but some more than others.
>
> > > 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.
Look to the example of lions in that regard. The trickster comes in, does his
thing, and then has all his progeny wiped out by the next male along, who
guards his turf and children until they can take care of themselves (and
killed the trickster's brood). Only if your offspring survive to reproduce is
your strategy successful. Simply having offspring is not enough.
>
> 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.
In some cases the "scattergun" (if you will) approach works, of course, it's
just not the only method, or even the best method within any given species.
>
> > > 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 forget! It's been a long long time since I cooked a lobster. It can be
done.
>
> > 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.
Cool.
>
> > > 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?
That is not a basic survival issue.
>
> > Because if we don't the mountain lions will?
>
> Because if I don't some other thug will?
Mountain lions are thugs?
>
> > 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.
Wrong. Humans pass the "stOOpid" test.
>
> > > > 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.
Rather, those awful liberals have figured out that rich people (dare we say
most notably conservatives) are only too happy to take advantage of poor
people, uneducated people, people who don't know the law.
> This is bad for two reasons.
> First it needlessly limits our self determination.
Needlessly? I disagree.
> 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.
At the same time everyone is not infinitely knowledgable on all subjects.
>
> > > > 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.
Lots and lots. I rented a house for a while. I signed a contract. By your
standard I'm stuck. By California's law it had an unenforcable agreement. I
could not sign away my rights.
Open up that software package and you agree to their conditions. Of course,
their conditions could be a load of dung. You haven't given up your rights -
they can not be signed away. The business attempted something illegal (and
probably unethical and unscupulous).
Businesses complain about too many laws, and on any given one (or set) I might
agree, but invariably laws were passed because they couldn't police themselves
(or because the business actually wanted the laws passed). Indentured service
died for a reason - if Libertopia brought it back, I'd say the fault was with
Libertopia, not with our current legal system.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
