Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:08:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1939 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > One has to eat, one doesn't have to invent elaborate weapons and detonate
> > them.
> >
> > One has to eat something and one has to defend oneself somehow.
>
> Only if attacked. One must eat, period.
But in the world of predators and prey, one is attacked. One must be able to
defend oneself.
> > Beyond that we
> > have many choices about the details. We don't generally have to cause pain • to
> > eat, and we generally don't have to use weapons of mass destruction for
> > defense. But there are exceptions. I think the parallel is perfect.
>
> Breathing we gotta do. Sleeping we gotta do. Warfare we don't gotta do.
Defense we gotta do.
> > I am uncomfortable with two things as distinct issues. The far more • important
> > (to me) issue is the causing of suffering. If you can breed, raise, and kill
> > your animals in a dignified and almost pain-free way, I am much happier. But
> > killing is still wrong. I think that other animals have exactly the same
> > 'right to life' that humans have. How you want to define that, I am somewhat
> > flexible on.
>
> Okay, then it isn't ultimately about pain and suffering (not to trivialize
> those complaints). It's a right to life issue.
It is ultimately about pain and suffering. And it is ultimately about killing.
Both are wrong. So are other forms of stealing.
> So, going back to the
> deer/mountain lion thing, do we kill the mountain lion to protect the deer?
I don't get it. You assert that our morals don't apply to the deer and feline,
I agree, and you keep hammering away at trying to get me to apply my morals to
a dumb predator. I won't. It doesn't make sense. And you agree!
> Just lock it up? What do we feed it when it is locked up? If the mountain
> lion has a right to do its predator thing, how are we any different?
We are different because we understand to a much greater degree the
repercussions of our actions than the mountain lion does. We are able to
conceive of morality and rights.
> Oh, and why the mountain lion/deer hang-up?
I have no mountain lion deer hang ups, you're the one who keeps bringing them
up. I don't have anything like mountain lions in my area. I have
> > Oh, but by thug I didn't mean to imply evil or morally wrong...
>
> "Thug" has a pejorative connotation.
I think of thug as being one who's kinda dumb and willing to be violent,
typically for a living. And I agree that it's a pejorative comment, but I
still didn't mean to imply evil.
> > Meaning that you would hold it against the ones who killed and ate their • fellow
> > vicims, right? If so, we disagree. I think that refusing to prey when • needed
> > to survive is above and beyond the call of duty. It's nice, but not • requisite
> > for being an OK person. I'm not sure which approach I would take.
>
> Murder is murder. He did it to survive? Okay, that means he'll do it again.
> Best to take him out now since he violated a basic social compact.
Weird! So violating a social contract (that was never even agreed to in any
kind of explicit way) is more severe than torturing to death some other
creature at a whim? OK, referring down to your agree to disagree comment, I
guess we will have to.
> That we are genetically adapted to eat meat and not genetically adapted to • kill
> our neighbor (regardless of whether we can).
My point was that we are equally genetically adapted to eat our neighbors.
> I'm asserting it is a natural part of our diet and meats (ooooo, sorry) meets
> certain nutrional requirements. As such, it is a natural thing for humans to
> do. You are asserting that there are ways to get around that and still • satisfy
> nutrional requirements. I am asserting that just because there are ways • around
> it doesn't mean that those ways are required or have a moral imperative.
But I've answered that. The it is a moral imperative because suffering is bad.
The fact that we have the leisure to avoid the causation of suffering, mens
that we have the opportunity to be better rather than worse (or default). When
presented with the option to be better or worse, one should choose the better
option, or they are acting immorally. Right?
Your
> primary reply to that is that animals have a right to life on some level (i.e.
> there IS a moral imperative). I'm not so sure what those rights are, or if
> they even exist (i.e. we are at the point that there is not much left except • to
> agree to disagree).
Actually I said that they have the same 'right' to life that humans have.
> > Basically, I'm just pointing back to the just because we can, doesn't mean we
> > should argument.
>
> And just because we don't have to, doesn't mean we shouldn't.
But I haven't claimed that. I have claimed that hurting things is bad and that
we don't have to. Those two points together lead to it being bad.
> If the plants don't grow, eating meat will be kinda worthless.
It'll be better than eating dead grass.
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Only if I have the resources. You are presuming the luxury of choice.
> >
> > Yes. I am. And given the luxury of choice, why do humans have the right to
> > hunt deer?
>
> Because they are hungry? Same as the mountain lion.
Then why don't we have the right to hunt humans? If I'm hungry, a big old
piece of your butt will suffice just as well as a deer flank.
> It has to do with predators, prey, and rights. It addresses all the same
> subjects except it pulls us out of the equation and puts something else in, • but
> the actual results of the equation are the same. If you apply standards to
> one, then they should apply to all.
But the mountain lion still doesn't know right from wrong.
> > But, I would say they don't strictly have
> > that right...they just do it anyway.
>
> Okay, the point I'm getting at is: the animal world doesn't recognize rights.
> The mountain lion hunts the deer and eats it if it can. We do to. Tell me • the
> difference.
It seems like I'm saying this over and over. We know better. Or at least we
should, because we can.
> > > Stealing Lego has no connection with this. Yes, I'm aware
> > > people trophy hunt. Take a photo, ya bloodthirsty sport hunters!
> >
> > I say it does.
>
> Stealing lego satisfies nutrional requirements? I just don't get it.
I didn't say that, and you know it. Stealing LEGO is stealing one form of
property. Stealing meat is another. They are the same, except that stealing
meat is worse since it's a neccessity for the owner to stay alive and well.
> > I would also say that the huge majority of deer hunters,
> > regardless of their consumption of the flesh of the deer, are sport hunters.
>
> As long as the ultimate effect is that they eat the deer, it's immaterial.
No it's not. It is quite material. You seem to be willing to acknowledge that
hunting deer for a wall trophy is immoral...or would you not go so far? But
hunting deer is a sport outing, not something that is worth doing on balance
because of the larder that gets stocked.
> > > Mountain Lions are adapted to eating virtually nothing but meat.
> >
> > Yup, just like my six domestic felines that I feed beef and chicken to. • Isn't
> > it weird how I can do that? I may need to think on it a bit.
>
> But that was my point all along. Are we just fooling ourselves with this talk
> of rights, of distinguishing between what we should kill and eat and what
> animals kill and eat?
OK, I think that 'rights' is a messy idea. Rights don't exist in some kind of
ultimate sense. So, like I've said all along, we have the same rights as the
deer. None. I want to put it on us instead. We have the responsibility to
not hurt animals when we don't need to. Mountain lions are the same...but they
need to.
Is it cleaner to you if I totally abandon the rights aspect of the argument?
> > OK, I think that people should have the right to allow themselves to be taken
> > advantage of in many ways that the government currently protects them from.
>
> Is it a matter of spin? Is the government protecting people from themselves,
> or are they stopping sleazebags from taking advantage of people?
Both. But I still think it shouldn't. At least in some areas and in some
ways.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
