Subject:
|
Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:56:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2154 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 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.
I didn't contradict that. Note above that in my attempt to show what you were
saying, I state that eating is a need. So it is what you said...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).
I agree with this for the most part. Many predatory fish will eat the young of
their own species...or anything else that fits in their mouth.
> 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.
I agree, but not on a nutritional level which seemed to be your rational for
why it was OK for men to kill deer.
> > 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
>
> 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.
But there is a biological need for self defense.
> The species will survive without them (and is more likely to survive • as
> a species without them).
Likely.
> 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.
OK, I guess we can let it die.
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
|
|
|
|
