devi@maisha.DEC (Gita L. Devi PKO1/D1 223-7046) (01/13/86)
How does a company express its appreciation of our services? At Thanksgiving, Digital gives out dead turkeys!!!! As an inveterate vegetarian, I've always been offended by the practice, especially on the evening of the "give-away", when I have to walk out of my building past large piles of cartons holding the poor birds' remains. "Into the valley of the shadow of death..." ( I know that we live in a meat-based society so I can't blame Digital for their method of appreciation) BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact that I have no say in the matter irks me. A living creature has been killed IN MY NAME! And the company response is that if you don't want the turkey, donate it to charity. I don't want anyone to eat that turkey, so I tear up my "turkey card" knowing full well that the creature is still going to end up in someone's stomach. Over the past five years, I've often wondered who would be the appropriate person to talk with about this. Well - a new group has been formed: Affirmative Action/Valuing Differences, managed by Barbara Walker. I've written and spoken with Ms. Walker, and she agreed that the area/issue is very "provocative".. She has forwarded my letter to the head of the turkey give-away committee. Anyway - for you DECcies out there, please write to Ms. Walker and let her know how you feel about this matter. She's on TURBO::WALKER. And for those of you working for other companies, have you ever dealt with a situation like this? I told Ms. Walker that I would rather get the money they spend for the bird, or that we should make it an option for all employees: take the money or the turkey. Any comments??? ------------------------------ And - in answer to the question of why it's okay for animals to eat meat and not man: Man has the option, the capacity to use higher reasoning and live by a morally higher standard. Animals don't have those choices. I also agree: why should it matter to someone who eats meat whether an animal is killed uselessly for food or for its fur, etc? Can you really make a distinction where death is concerned (other than for self-defense)?
kdoshi@umn-cs.UUCP (Kunjal Doshi) (01/21/86)
> And - in answer to the question of why it's okay for animals to eat meat and > not man: Man has the option, the capacity to use higher reasoning and live > by a morally higher standard. Animals don't have those choices. > > I also agree: why should it matter to someone who eats meat whether an > animal is killed uselessly for food or for its fur, etc? Can you really > make a distinction where death is concerned (other than for self-defense)? Couldn't have said it better myself. kd
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (01/25/86)
> And - in answer to the question of why it's okay for animals to > eat meat and not man: Man has the option, the capacity to use > higher reasoning and live by a morally higher standard. Animals > don't have those choices. > > [ killing animals for food vs. killing animals for furs ] All this argument really says is that it is ok for non-higher-reasoning beings to eat meat because even if it is not moral to do so, they do not have the capacity to decide this. This argument says nothing about the morality of eating meat. And how about the morality of killing plants? [ note: no :-) ] I see no inconsistency in eating meat but objecting to having animals killed for their fur. There are other substances that can be used to make fake furs that do not involve killing animals, and are just as good or better than animal fur both functionally and esthetically (sp?). When the technology of fake food gets to where, say, fake steaks and hamburgers can be produced that are as good as the originals, both nutritionally AND in taste/texture, then it will be time to stop killing cattle. Similarly for other meat animals. Wouldn't net.misc be a better group for this? I would assume that most people who read net.veg are vegetarians, and so a more general group, like net.misc, would be more likely to get no-vegetarians involved. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (01/28/86)
In article <324@ism780c.UUCP> I make a type: > >Wouldn't net.misc be a better group for this? I would assume that >most people who read net.veg are vegetarians, and so a more general >group, like net.misc, would be more likely to get no-vegetarians >involved. ^_ non-vegetarians -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
hsd@uvacs.UUCP (02/01/86)
Tim Smith writes: > > [ killing animals for food vs. killing animals for furs ] > the morality of eating meat. And how about the morality of killing > plants? [ note: no :-) ] This has always been a sore point with me. If I feel immoral by eating once-living, now-dead things, what makes plants any less "living" than animals? With the exception of eggs and milk, is there any current foodstuff which wasn't killed/harvested? > I see no inconsistency in eating meat but objecting to having animals > killed for their fur. ... I agree. You are perfectly correct that modern technology can supply this need better than animals, and without causing pain and death. > Wouldn't net.misc be a better group for this? I would assume that > most people who read net.veg are vegetarians, and so a more general > group, like net.misc, would be more likely to get no-vegetarians > involved. Here is at least one non-vegetarian who reads net.veg, because as a former veggie, I am still interested in these issues. I also have vegetarian friends whom I prepare meals for occasionally. -- Harry S. Delugach University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!cbosgd!uvacs!hsd or ..!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!hsd CSNET: hsd@virginia