Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:45:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2090 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks 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.
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 evolved over eons into their present forms, while nuclear
weapons and their detonation are technological products of the past few
decades. As such, our need to eat is inherent in our biology, but our
detonation of such weapons is a conscious response to the modern world. A
difference not of degree, but of kind. Taken from this perspective, the two
are visibly quite different. Am I reading you right, Bruce?
Chris, I think you're seeing it more a degree thing, in that nuclear weapons
can be seen as our instinctive drive to defend ourselves in much the same way
that our drive to feed ourselves is a product of instinct. By extension, while
we can subsist on simple grains and berries, we partake of a much more varied
diet; similarly, while we could defend ourselves with fist and heel, we employ
a considerably broader spectrum of weapons. The two (need to eat and need to
detonate nuclear weapons) in this way may be considered somewhat parallel. Am
I close?
Just a few thoughts--I wanted to make sure I was understanding your
respective views here...
Dave!
As such, under this light, the two
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
