Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:24:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2075 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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 our resources.
> 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.
As noted above, I think that's wrong.
> 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?
Well, Bruce confirmed his side, and I'd basically confirm my side of it too.
But then where does that leave us. I guess, at the agree to disagree stage,
but that always seems like a cop out or something...I guess I'll just have to
live with it.
> Just a few thoughts--I wanted to make sure I was understanding your
> respective views here...
Thanks. I know it's frustrating to be watching an argument where you see the
two people speaking past one another and not 'getting' it. I'm not sure that's
what's happening here, but maybe.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
