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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (48079)	5/17/1999 11:42:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Johannes, I am almost on your side on this. First, I should note that my impression from lorrie is that this whale hunt is a publicity stunt by a Northwest tribe, and that the hunt is more ritual than provisioning, but since I am unclear, I have tried to indicate a possible range of reactions depending upon the actual details. The reason that I say that I am almost on your side is that while I do not think that there is a moral injunction against eating dogs, say, I think that in places where plenty of other meat is available, and the dog is generally treated as a pet, the revulsion is appropriate, and cannot be dismissed as being "merely" cultural. Works of art are merely objects, and yet there is a particular horror of vandalism against them, more than is felt about the ordinary violation of property, because they are special objects. Similarly, dogs have a certain social character that makes it improper to eat them, unless desperate. In the case of whales, although they are not domesticated, it is widely known that they are among the several species that are closest to us in intellectual capacity, and therefore there is a reluctance to treat them the same as any bovine. Just as courtesy enhances the ethical character, while falling short of moral injunction, so do these kinds of sensitivities....