 | | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals? —Christopher L. Weeks
| | | | (...) I think it the freedom to exert some control over how you biochemically react to stimuli. The opposite is to assume we're part of a complex chemical reaction racing forward into the future and what we do, as a product of that reaction, doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals? —David Eaton
| | | | | | (...) I'd certainly go for the latter... However, I don't think that either gains any sort of advantage nor affords any loss. That is, unless you take up the sadly pessimistic view that "nothing I do matters", and turn into a lazy couch potato as a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals? —Tom Stangl
| | | | | (...) Taking this tack, why the heck would it matter if you ate meat or not, and why would eating meat be evil, if nothing we do matters to the total reaction? (...) It is, though "generally", there are some "universal" morals that "most" humans (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals? —Christopher L. Weeks
| | | | | (...) react (...) Well, that's a perfect example of why I don't take that tack. Even if it's true, we don't gain by accepting no free will. And if it's wrong, we lose a _huge_ amount (like everything that humanity is) by assuming the contrary (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
