Debate : 6163


Off-Topic / Debate / 6163

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) our (...) 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). (...) What if their culture chooses to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

Gosh, these are getting long. (...) organic (...) The former. I believe that it was not evil when it was the only option. That is not the nature of evil. (...) If a person or people are given the chance to improve their moral ground, and do not, my (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) was (...) - (...) Fair enough. Hmmmm, situational ethics, though. Them's the breaks, I guess. (...) As long as they understand the situation...okay, I might not agree with what you define as evil, but its a reasonable process. (...) Yes, that (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Right, OK, I see what you want now. It is wrong to cause pain in others. This may either be 'commuted' or ignored (depending on how you look at it) when it is needed for your survival. (...) them. One has to eat something and one has to defend (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) TIME WARP WARNING: My replies do not always follow a chronological sequence. Explanations to such lurk somewhere in the middle. (...) This (...) Aha! What we need is a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy beast that kills it self (humanely). :-) (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But in the world of predators and prey, one is attacked. One must be able to defend oneself. (...) to (...) Defense we gotta do. (...) important (...) It is ultimately about pain and suffering. And it is ultimately about killing. Both are (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm only offering a quick $.02, since this isn't my branch of the debate, but I'm perceiving a miscommunication of intent here. I think Bruce's assertion is that the biological need for food and the need for the means to acquire food have (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Essentially. One is at an extremely basic level, the other is not. Inferring too much from them as a matching set is fraught with hazards. Best to make the point with some other example. Bruce (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Larry Pieniazek

Hmm, just a random potshot here. (...) If what defines us is our use of tools and our ability to manipulate the environment instead of just react to it, both of which are due to our ability to reason in a self aware manner, how are a club and a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You are right, it is not germane. :-) Or to put it another way: you go hunting with a nuke? I don't see how the "right" (need, whatever) to use nukes relates to killing some animal for food (which is what this was about). It's a weird tangent (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Your claim was that the 'need' to do something (eat) granted the 'right' to do something (kill (almost) anything). But you reject the first analogy that I tried relating the hunting of deer to the hunting of people. So I tried relating the (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No, that's your interpretation of it, but that's not what I said. "Rights" are an artificial construct of humans so that they can better live together. Eating is a one of our most basic needs, not a right. (...) I explained why I feel they are (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) do (...) are (...) I didn't contradict that. Note above that in my attempt to show what you were saying, I state that eating is a need. So it is what you said...right? (...) I agree with this for the most part. Many predatory fish will eat the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Chris Maddison

OK, I think I'll step in now and rant a bit. This has nothing to do with nutritional value, or anything like that, just my overall view. This'll be a long one... I hunt. Deer, rabbit, squirrel, and pheasant. Deer for the most part. Now, I've been (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <snip> (...) And some of the non-hunters as well. I personally don't hunt, don't personally care for it, but I think it's a good skill to have. And I wish all hunters were as thoughtful as Chris. Hunters indeed were the first conservationists. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Chris Maddison

<snip> (...) Thanks Larry. I attribute my thoughtfullness and values to my father. He's taught me to respect the animals and the land, all that good stuff. I wish all hunters could have a positive influence such as this. If they did, maybe we (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

I guess this was in response to me, though I'm not exactly sure how. I hate to risk trying to connect it to the topic before which was based on rights and responsibilites since that doesn't seem to be the main point. So I'll take an approach (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Chris Maddison

(...) to (...) Well, it's not in response to anyone; I've just been sitting back looking at the whole issue over animals and cruelty and the like develop, and I just decided to voice my opinions, on a somewhat related although different matter, if (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Hi again, I think that this will forever be our stumbling block. I presume that you base these theories on a holy text of some kind rather than observable phenomina? (Except, of course, the bit about the relationship between prey and predator (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) Perhaps not some preordained purpose, but they do fill a role as prey, just as humans fill a role as (for instance, with thanks to George Carlin) the manufacturers of plastic. (...) Do you actually believe this? We're talking about deer, (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I didn't know that George Carlin was crucial to the plastics industry. ;-) Absolutely. They are prey to wolves, people, etc. -- and they prey on vegitation (preferring my juvenile apple trees to all else, so it would seem). (...) I believe (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) I disagree. They are prey regardless of what they choose, but sometimes they are eaten and sometimes they are not. (...) But is it a "want"? Their hearts keep beating, but not because they want them to. (...) Ignoring for the moment that there (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But it would seem then that you remove meaning from the term 'prey.' By what I think you're saying, all organisms are prey. If so, what point is there in using the term? (...) I think that eating in response to hunger is very different than (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) I think you're referring to my earlier comment about "being prey to bacteria," by which I was being (in retrospect) unclearly rhetorical. I would say that prey can be defined as an animal consumed by a predator, while a predator is an animal (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) they (...) So humans (at least Bangladeshis) are prey too? Because they are hunted sometimes by predators. How's this: In addition to being prey, deer are a great many other things, and I don't think that their happenstance role as prey in the (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) Absolutely! Just as I would be prey if I slept unprotected on the veldt, and just as the poor guy a few weeks ago (in Canada? I can't remember) who was eaten by a bear. (...) Being prey doesn't preclude being other things, too. Many predators (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Tom Stangl

(...) Handled below... (...) That's assuming deer HAVE that complex of a longterm memory (as opposed to spacial memory maps of the best places to eat, and instinct for a certain breeding grounds they've never been to before). (...) Nope - that can (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) doesn't (...) season. (...) Absolutely. And I could be wrong. But in many ways it seems safer to assume similarity than difference. (...) ivy? (...) Agreed, but I'm not sure it's that simple. (...) Right. You're not going to change, and I'm (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Tom Stangl

(...) OK, I should have stated "giving SOME animals". I agree with the above, obviously some animals are quite intelligent. But I certainly don't put deer, fowl, or beef cattle in their ranks. (...) Bull. All rules can be broken (except some (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) obviously (...) beef (...) OK, my bad. I had been using the deer (even prior to your entry into the discussion) as an icon for the other animals in general. that was sloppy of me. I am willing to disucuss any given animal's capabilities (...) (24 years ago, 6-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting —Dave Schuler

(...) Out of curiosity, how is this determined, other than by casual observation? And how broad a range of behaviors do the chickens exhibit? This would seem central to a useful discussion of chicken intelligence. By the way, is your use of (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) clearly (...) that (...) Hi, I'm out of town and this is likely to be my last access to the net until Monday or Tuesday, so I'm a bit behind. In backward order: It was not a subtle propoganda on my part, but now that it's pointed out, I think (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Tom Stangl

(...) Do you HONESTLY think human sex drive is the same as deer? Come on, now, really. Deer don't have recreational sex, humans do. While hormones CAN affect humans, humans can generally have/not have sex whenever they feel like it. (...) If I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, that's not what I said, is it? At least not that it's exactly the same. I think that more paralells can be drawn between human and deer motivation than many people seem to think are valid. (...) Cite. (...) And do. All the time. Every (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Tom Stangl

(...) Show me a deer copulating outside of the hormone driven mating season. You won't find one, unless some researcher is playing with deer hormones (which points back to deer not having the control humans do). (...) Nowhere near the same way as (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) won't (...) back (...) OK, I guess I have two comments to this, but I want them to come after first noting that I agree with the general gist of this. One thing, is that we may have lucked into not being hormonally ruled WRT our mating habits. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm not sure of their exact evolutionary similarity, but the Bonobos chimps demonstrate a considerable sex drive and incorporate sexual play into their everyday social structure. In addition, several Victorian-era zoos found it unacceptable to (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Selçuk Göre

(...) <snip> (...) Heh!.. <snip> (...) Yes, and it's about killing for pleasure and enjoyment. (look at the quotes below) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Yes, completely...:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Kevin Wilson

(...) Just out of curiosity Chris, if you don't like the actual killing part, why not hunt with a camera instead? The actual hunt part should be just the same, but instead of killing the creature you get as good and close a pic as you can manage. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Chris Maddison

(...) Aye, Kevin, I do that too. Me and my dad go out with videocameras and trail timers yearround and take pictures and movies and such. But shooting things with a videocamera doesn't put food on the table. I like deer meat, and that's why I hunt, (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?") —Christopher Tracey

(...) I'm not sure on the deer populations for where you live, but in many areas of the eastern US, hunters should be taking at least four dear to keep the pops to reasonable numbers. (...) While hunter's have fostered several great conservation (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No. You keep equating rights and needs as the same thing. I'm saying they are not the same thing. Your first line in this sequence is incorrect on my outlook: that's your interpretation of it but that's NOT what I said. (...) don't (...) of (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Christopher L. Weeks

I'm rearranging some of the points, but not the text within the points. (...) OK, I guess I can't completely. (...) Oh...I'm not trying to convince you to stop eating meat at all. And I don't think that nukes have anything to do with whether you (or (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?" —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) See that sentence above? Read it in its entirety. See the word "right"? See the word "need"? See how you place them in the same sentence and attribute them to me? This is your interpretation (i.e. what you THINK is the case). It is not (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) To further the line of ungermane thoughts, I think it's safe to say that more people have died from club attack than nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why that seems significant at this time, but it does. Chris (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That may be his assertion, but I would say that nuclear weapons are the natural outcome of eons of development too. The entire time that we've been growing more efficient at eating mroe things, we've been growing more efficient in defending (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Major snippage thoughout - not because the discussion points were unworthy, but that it got to be too sprawling and too conuterproductive to the main theme. (...) I was talking about ME, not you. You snipped my explanation of such. :-) (...) (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Oh! Not on purpose...I guess I misunderstood. (...) again. (...) No, not exactly okay. I mean, it's to be avoided when possible. But if your choice is to kill or be killed, what do you choose? Under most conditions, I think I'll choose kill. (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) by (...) But your example wasn't a case of kill or be killed (which implies self- defense). It was kill or die (murder someone else to escape death). (...) While interesting, this doesn't address my question. (...) Hmmmmmm. (...) Actually, I (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Tom Stangl

(...) Yet there are people out there that would probably choose to die rather than kill - my wife doesn't think she could kill someone to protect her life. All I can hope is that if that situation ever arises, that I am there, because I have no (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line)) —Christopher L. Weeks

What's up Tom? You just dial in to .debate and get angry? (...) your (...) I (...) kill - (...) Yeah, my wife used to say that, but she doesn't any more. I simply don't understand it, but I acknowledge that it's there. I'm not sure what it shows WRT (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)