Subject:
|
Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:25:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2141 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > Or to put it another way: you go hunting with a nuke? I don't see how the
> > "right" (need, whatever) to use nukes relates to killing some animal for food
> > (which is what this was about).
>
> Your claim was that the 'need' to do something (eat) granted the 'right' to do
> something (kill (almost) anything).
No, that's your interpretation of it, but that's not what I said. "Rights" are
an artificial construct of humans so that they can better live together.
Eating is a one of our most basic needs, not a right.
> But you reject the first analogy that I
> tried relating the hunting of deer to the hunting of people.
I explained why I feel they are different. You reject those reasons (or don't
address them). Predators don't eat their own kind, for one (ain't natural).
Humans can make deals with each other to behave in certain ways - humans and
deers can't make that deal. Both on social and natural levels there are
reasons why hunting deer for food and hunting people for food is different.
> So I tried
> relating the 'need' to do something (eat) to the 'need' to do something else
> (self-defend). I think that both are clear and valid analogies. I'm not sure
> where we're getting crossed wires.
Humans have nutrient requirements and have evolved certain dietary practices to
meet those needs (or perhaps the other way around, but it works out the same).
I don't see how detonating nukes compares. There is no biological need for
nukes. The species will survive without them (and is more likely to survive as
a species without them).
>
> > It's a weird tangent that won't die
>
> It doesn't seem weird though. Sorry.
We very clearly have different ideas on weird. Broccoli. EEE-YUCK! Run a
poll: I bet liking broccoli is deemed the weird choice. :-)
>
> Chris
We're just repeating ourselves at this point. I'm not trying to say that your
outlook isn't wrong for you. I'm not trying to convince you to eat meat (by
all means, don't!). It doesn't bother me to agree to disagree on this - it's
clear we approach this from two very different angles.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
