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: Neocon who wrote (48080)	5/17/1999 12:17:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>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.< They are not special objects, at least no more special than a toothpick or a basket, and depending upon the context in which they are presented they can be destroyed without so much as a thought. Indeed I think much of what passes for “art” in this country should be ground into powder and used to make something useful. Value is not objective and so objects can and do acquire differing values at differing times depending upon context. Even the value of human life changes depending upon context. (It seems to generally cheapen with the passing of time.) Our horror of vandalism against works of art occurs because of context. In other words, it occurs because of culture. >Similarly, dogs have a certain social character that makes it improper to eat them, unless desperate.< This “social character” is determined culturally. Whereas some cultures may particularly become enamoured with the lop-eared, tail wagging slobbering mutt that greets its master at the end of each working day, others may think it ridiculous, worthy only of being shot and discarded. Still others may think it worthy only of a big pot with vegetables. Nothing intrinsic to any of these latter two circumstances prohibits one in any way from dispatching the poor beast. >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.< Well the West's love of whales is nothing but a component of the West's love of its notion of intellect. In other words, it is simply a matter of culture. To some cultures these animals are clearly not to be included within human society and therefore they are in every way edible. >Just as courtesy enhances the ethical character, while falling short of moral injunction, so do these kinds of sensitivities....< Yes of course, and these sensitivities depend upon one's culture. Gotta run to lunch-- chimp-burgers on the grill.