Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:22:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2123 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > > 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.
But your example wasn't a case of kill or be killed (which implies self-
defense). It was kill or die (murder someone else to escape death).
>
> > 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.
While interesting, this doesn't address my question.
>
> > > 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.
Hmmmmmm.
>
> > What if we do it for our cat?
>
> <squirm>Um, it's still bad. <Oh shoot, now what am I going to do?>
Actually, I once acquired a cat from some very strict vegetarians - it didn't
get any meat, either (allegedly). I'm not sure I'd recommend this if you want
a healthy cat.
>
> > 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?
In part, yes. We don't have the same definition of need: something we are
adapted to satisfies me. Something we may be adapted to but can avoid
satisfies you. And certainly at some level that has validity.
I may change my mind someday. I'm still pondering pigs, so I gotta resolve
that first. Then I have to address the kill to feed the cat quandry. It all
makes my brain hurt.
Bruce
>
> > > 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 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
|
|
|
|
