SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (48074)5/17/1999 11:27:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (2) of 67261
 
The hesitancy to kill unnecessarily is a hesitancy of which I heartily approve. My own children are well aware of our maxim that whether snake, frog, dog or deer “if you kill it, you eat it.” I do not speak of killing “unnecessarily.” I speak of killing for food. (I have not followed the thread very well at all. So perhaps you have been speaking of merely wanton killing of animals). So I must then reject the example of drowning cats and focus upon the eating of dogs and the like. Killing chimps and whales for food is philosophically exactly the same as killing deer and cows.

While we may have a culturally inbred affinity for dogs, chimps, whales, etc., this certainly presents no general moral/ethical proscription against our eating them, any more than it presents a general proscription against eating lamb or goats. It is a cultural thing. One culture may enjoy snakes as pets and be loathe to eat them. Another may think of them as delicacies.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News