To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 6197
6196  |  6198
Subject: 
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:58:07 GMT
Viewed: 
2154 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:


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.


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

I was talking about ME, not you.  You snipped my explanation of such.  :-)


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.

Murdering someone is okay?  That's not weird, that's really sick.  At least by
my morality.

And I didn't say a thing about torturing to death anything.  When have we
discussed torture?

I have claimed that hurting things is bad and that
we don't have to.  Those two points together lead to it being bad.

Hurting things is bad, but under what conditions?  What if we do it for our
cat?  What if that cat is a mountain lion?  What if we kill the deer for the
pet mountain lion?  Bad?  If the mountain lion does it itself.  That's natural.
The deer is still dead!  And I probably killed it cleaner than the mountain
lion.


If the plants don't grow, eating meat will be kinda worthless.

It'll be better than eating dead grass.

Ummmm, then the animals will die and there will be nothing to hunt.  Better
grow something besides dead grass.


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.

Gristle.  Long distance runner.  Not tasty.  Besides, I'm dangerous.  :-)

Against the law, in any case (i.e. you have no right to do so, moral judgment
has been passed).

I've answered about humans already, but that was me specifically.



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.

(Walking around and peering at that) I can accept this - but we have different
definitions of need, so we are going to disagree about application.


Is it cleaner to you if I totally abandon the rights aspect of the argument?

Yes.  I think your preceeding statement is much better and removes a lot of
baggage.


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.

Ahhh, that is a matter of degree.  I don't have a problem with that.

Bruce



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
 
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
 
(...) 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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR