Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:00:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1706 times
|
| |
|
|
Gosh, these are getting long.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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:
> > 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).
The former. I believe that it was not evil when it was the only option. That
is not the nature of evil.
> > > 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?
If a person or people are given the chance to improve their moral ground, and
do not, my first inclination is to say that they are evil. However, I
recognize that to some extent, those people have not been truely given what
they need to step through that door. On the other hand, I'm not willing to
waver on calling it evil. Aghhh <head explodes>!
OK, I'm better. Some people in the world perpetuate evil and hide behind
cultural identity and preference. (e.g. slavery, genital mutilation, animal
abuse, etc.) I don't buy it. I don't like it. And I don't think we should
let it go in the interest of getting along.
> > > 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?
In this case, it being wrong requires that you be able to aford it being wrong.
Maybe in all cases. I'm not sure if I disagree conditionally or universally.
Right now I'm leaning toward universally. morals are for the rich.
> Yup, the sad thing is that without the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
> worse things probably would have happened.
Quite.
> > 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.
What is the essence of their difference that makes you think them not
analagous?
> 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.
Well, I think we should want to not go through point A because it is the cause
of needless suffering.
> > > 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.
Right, regular cannibals are. Normally. But plane crash survivors and whatnot
is really what I was meaning. But if a big box were filled with people and no
food and no way out, and the only thing to eat was one another. I might award
the moral high ground to those that refused to prey on others and died because
of it, but I also wouldn't hold it against the ones who survived.
> > > 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?.
For the record, they're quite smart. See _Babe_ and _Green Acres_ as examples.
;-)
> I may be willing to
> slaughter a fish or a chicken, but am I willing to slaughter a pig (beyond
> simple squeemishness)?
Of the standard meat animals, they are far and away the smartest. Arguably
smarter than either cats or dogs. So if that's what you value...
> 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?"
Right, that's the conservative approach.
> > 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.
So the same kind of discrimination is wise if it has the opposite vector?
> Illustrative of a real event that I could not have taken part in.
Oh, thanks for the history.
> > > > 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.
Mine are not, at least not beyond the point that people have (of course)
influenced my thoughts.
> > > 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.
We are hardwired to be able to consume human flesh. Not specifically, but in
the same category as your assertion about the flesh of other animals.
> > 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.
True.
> 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.
Not even on a species by species basis. For some members in some situations,
one strategy may be best that is not so for another.
> > > > 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.
Neither is hunting deer. You could grow corn and beans instead.
> >
> > > Because if we don't the mountain lions will?
> >
> > Because if I don't some other thug will?
>
> Mountain lions are thugs?
Well actually, I was trying to apply your mountain lion logic to the earlier
LEGO theivery example. But the moutain lion as thug example works too. Sure.
> > 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.
So not only is it distasteful for you to eat cats because they cross your line,
but it's immoral for others to eat cats?
> > 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.
I didn't mean to imply liberals are any more awful than conservatives. Each
have their weaknesses.
> > This is bad for two reasons.
> > First it needlessly limits our self determination.
>
> Needlessly? I disagree.
Noted.
> > 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.
Then they should be careful about the contracts they sign.
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
|
|
|
|
