Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:41:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1948 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > Oh, and why the mountain lion/deer hang-up?
> >
> > I have no mountain lion deer hang ups, you're the one who keeps bringing them
> > up. I don't have anything like mountain lions in my area. I have
>
> I was talking about ME, not you. You snipped my explanation of such. :-)
Oh! Not on purpose...I guess I misunderstood.
> > > Murder is murder. He did it to survive? Okay, that means he'll do it • again.
> > > Best to take him out now since he violated a basic social compact.
> >
> > Weird! So violating a social contract (that was never even agreed to in any
> > kind of explicit way) is more severe than torturing to death some other
> > creature at a whim? OK, referring down to your agree to disagree comment, I
> > guess we will have to.
>
> Murdering someone is okay? That's not weird, that's really sick. At least by
> my morality.
No, not exactly okay. I mean, it's to be avoided when possible. But if your
choice is to kill or be killed, what do you choose? Under most conditions, I
think I'll choose kill.
> And I didn't say a thing about torturing to death anything. When have we
> discussed torture?
Agriculture. By my (and the 'real') definition of torture, common
agricultural practices are torturous. Read up on meat fowl production if you
would like to be nausiated.
> > I have claimed that hurting things is bad and that
> > we don't have to. Those two points together lead to it being bad.
>
> Hurting things is bad, but under what conditions?
Generally.
> What if we do it for our cat?
<squirm>Um, it's still bad. <Oh shoot, now what am I going to do?>
> What if that cat is a mountain lion? What if we kill the deer for the
> pet mountain lion? Bad?
Kind of. <OK, ok, uncle...let me up.>
I don't know.
> If the mountain lion does it itself. That's natural.
> The deer is still dead! And I probably killed it cleaner than the mountain
> lion.
But...but...yeah, I suppose.
> > OK, I think that 'rights' is a messy idea. Rights don't exist in some kind • of
> > ultimate sense. So, like I've said all along, we have the same rights as the
> > deer. None. I want to put it on us instead. We have the responsibility to
> > not hurt animals when we don't need to. Mountain lions are the same...but • they
> > need to.
>
> (Walking around and peering at that) I can accept this - but we have different
> definitions of need, so we are going to disagree about application.
Man...I just can't win with you! :-) Because you have the "need" to eat meat,
right?
> > Is it cleaner to you if I totally abandon the rights aspect of the argument?
>
> Yes. I think your preceeding statement is much better and removes a lot of
> baggage.
Agreed. The more I think about it, I like that stance better.
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
|
|
|
|
