cgeiger@ut-ngp.UUCP (Charles S. Geiger, Esq.) (01/29/86)
I apologize to those who don't want this argument on this net. I don't think any other net is appropriate, so I'll put it here; how- ever, for those of you who prefer more tranquility, I won't post again about this subject. (This is me.) >>I really disagree! Like other people have said recently, there are >>*ethical,* not just moral, questions involved in the way people get >>their meat in this society. The whole system of having an industry, >>in which animals are treated as a commodity, a product, bring meat >>to people's tables is fucked! This really has nothing to do with >>people's "aesthetic position"s regarding their preference concerning >>eating meat. >>Damn, I really wish I had been brought up where I had to kill my food >>myself. Then I *would* have been confronted with a personal, moral, >>or, if you will, an aesthetic dilemma. But don't kid yourself into >>thinking we have one now. (This is 'Karl.') >You assume that killing animals is 'bad' or 'wrong'. What >is your proof? What possible proof could there be? Just substituting >other words (cruel, insensitive, etc.) does not consitute a proof. >Pointing out that it is inconsistant with a particular system >of ethics or morality doesn't help, either. I could find different >systems that disagreed. Who's to say which system is 'better'? I'm confused at how one can misunderstand me so easily. Maybe my writing style is no good. I *never* said that killing animals is bad or wrong. I wouldn't even begin to offer any proof of that. I questioned the present system which involves the wholesale industrial captivity and slaughter of animals in a way which deprives them of any dignity or respect. I *still* think that this is an ethical question, at least involving less pure moral questions than simply "is it right to kill animals?" (By the way, ethics and morality *are* different.) The fact is that no one really is forced to deal with that question, no one really has to confront that personal moral dilemma in our culture today. People go to a store and buy this stuff wrapped in plastic and styrofoam and never have to deal with whether or not *they* would kill that animal to get the meat. That was my point, o.k.? I also happen to believe that an awful lot of people wouldn't kill the food that they so much take for granted, but that's just my opinion. (This is Dan Levy.) >Cooooool down. Nobody's forcing you to eat or buy meat or any other >animal products at all. The 'fucked' system is there because lots of >(most) other people DO choose to eat meat/use animal parts for other >purposes. Each purchase of meat or animal products is, in effect, a >'vote' for the particular system (and they do differ--e.g., there >are lots of bovines still out there in the open fields) that produced >it. So you don't like it? Fine, don't cast your vote for it. Or >if you still eat meat, or use other animal products, and it bothers >you how some sources treat the animals, be choosy about who you >buy from. It's that simple, cast your vote as you see fit. Fair >enough? This really makes me mad. Do you *really* believe all that stuff about consumers `voting' and all that crap? Can I sell you a bridge? Why do you assume that the public is totally educated about the life and death of the animals that they eat? Are *you*? Have you ever visited a slaughterhouse? Have you followed a chicken from hatchling to wire cage to grocery store? When you and everyone who buys meat in a grocery store *become* aware of the process which brings them their meat, then fine, you'll have a point. But to suggest *now* that people who buy meat are voting for the process as well is ludicrous. I promise that my next posting will be a recipe! Charles S. Geiger wage slave U. of Texas