Subject:
|
Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:31:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2416 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
No. You keep equating rights and needs as the same thing. I'm saying they
are not the same thing. Your first line in this sequence is incorrect on my
outlook: that's your interpretation of it but that's NOT what I said.
>
> > > 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.
And what is on my eat list? StOOpid fish! Non-predator pigs will do the same
thing on occasion, by the way. Oh, and I have previously pointed out that
predators don't eat themselves as a *general* rule.
>
> > 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.
Deer have been part of our nutrition, humans haven't, so I don't see the
contradiction that you seem to feel is self-evident.
>
> > > 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.
There is no biological need for nukes. If you somehow think I'm going to stop
eating meat because of nukes, you are taking some serious drugs.
>
> > 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
But we didn't. :-O
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
|
|
|
|
