Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (11771)	5/3/2002 10:24:08 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Animals are not innocents in the sense you seem to be using it. They are not moral creatures, and therefore their innocence is not a moral quality, but a mere exclusion from moral accountability. We do not say "That deer is guilty, so I can shoot it", we say "That deer is meat, so I can shoot it". The animals are ours to use. We are supposed to cultivate certain qualities, for example, respect for nature and kindness, and therefore we do feel that we should regulate our actions towards animals to some extent. We are sensitive, for example, to the nobility of the horse, and are inhibited about eating horse meat unless there is a marked shortage of other meaty animals. We have a special bond with the dog, as a domesticated animal that has some intelligence and ability to emotionally bond with us, and therefore are loathe, in most cultures, to eat dog meat, unless we are starving. But, in the end, I can see no real reason to be inhibited about using rats as kamikazes.......