Subject:
|
Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:32:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2449 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm rearranging some of the points, but not the text within the points.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > OK, I guess we can let it die.
>
> But we didn't. :-O
OK, I guess I can't completely.
> 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.
Oh...I'm not trying to convince you to stop eating meat at all. And I don't
think that nukes have anything to do with whether you (or anyone) should be
eating meat. I was just responding to a particular point with an analogy
(which I understand you disagree with).
> > > > 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.
I really don't understand what is missing here. No, I have never and will
never equate rights and needs as the same thing. Nothing in my arguments
suggest that as my belief. And on the multiple occasions where I am trying to
clarify what I think you are saying, based on what you've said, and you say
that I got it wrong, you keep disagreeing. In the most recent case, all I was
trying to get was the agreement that you are stating that eating is a need.
And your only response is "no." But I can point to the words you wrote where
you say that eating is a need (search, search, search...actually I'm having
trouble, but I know it's there...this is interesting...there is a note from
you in this thread: http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6197 , that I
haven't seen. Weird.), so I'm perplexed as to what is happening here.
I'm also off to respond to that missed note since it seems like a much better
place from which to discuss...if there's anything left to say.
Are we just meaning something different, or what?
> > 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.
Right, I was just pointing out an interesting counter, not trying to thrash
your whole argument...I fully acknowledge that you're correct about most
species under most conditions not eating their own. I really freaked out once
as a twelve (or so) year old when I got up one morning and found in my ~M^3 rat
colony a recent mama eating her pinkeys. Yuck! They were overcrowded.
> > > 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.
But I thought that your argument stemmed from the fact that our biology
included the ability to gain sustenance from deer meat. And that that was the
neccessary and sufficient condition for it being right to do so. Actually, I
have come to belive that you think that is neccessary but not sufficient, and
that only when combined with the fact that deer are stOOpid (did I get that
right?) is it made right. But before coming to that conclusion, comparing the
situation to hunting people made perfect sense.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
