devi@maisha.DEC (Gita L. Devi PKO1/D1 223-7046) (01/27/86)
> 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 :-) ] The entire argument is based on morality, but you appear so blinded by your "subjective logic" that you fail to see this. My opinion is that it is TOTALLY IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, INHUMAN, CRUEL, UNHEALTHY, etc. etc. etc for MAN to eat flesh. Believe me, I am not thrilled that some animals kill other animals either, but that's how God made them (Now I'll probably hear from someone on the religious issue!). And, unlike man, most animals don't go around randomly slaughtering each other in "wars", or creating weapons of global destruction, but that's another issue. >>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. Again - you have missed the point. Food of vegetable origin is not, I am happy to say, FAKE FOOD. You have to change the focal length of your consciousness. You are thinking that only something that looks like or smells like cooked flesh is food. WRONG!! If you can accept the fact that we do not need to kill animals for food (or fur), then why eat them now??? There have been products on the market for years that simulate those products that you so love. Why not try them out? >>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 Absolutely not! This is a net group for vegetarians, and as such, we have every right to express what we want to say. Obviously, there are non- vegetarians reading this news group, or we wouldn't be having such a nice discussion going on. I'm glad that this group is finally generating some straight talk. In fact, a co-worker of mine (non-veggie) told me that he reads this news group to goad him into giving up meat. If that's the case, then we owe it to the non-vegetarians who do read this net.veg to tell them the facts behind the animal slaughter going on in this country. Old MacDonald isn't down on the farm anymore with his happy group of animals who are just waiting to be taken to the slaughter house while they sing EI EI O.. >> Not to continue the argument, but hopefully to end it -- >> It is exactly like the abortion issue - There are *NO* >>facts that could *ever* come to light that would settle the >>issue. >> Both sides are simply rationalizing an aesthetic position. >>And, as has been said, there is no accounting for taste. >> So, give it a rest, folks. >>>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. By the way, I think this *does* belong in this newsgroup. So there. Charles S. Geiger U. of Texas >>> Thank you for taking a stand. When I read the suggestion that we not discuss these issues on net.veg, I was furious. I was just about to write my reply, when I read Mr. Geiger's reply. I may not agree with his choice of words, but he certainly made his point. A round of applause to you. "rationalizing an aesthetic position"???? That really got me! Do you think that most vegetarians don't eat meat because of aesthetics? Granted, the thought of a hunk of dead, rotting, putrified slab of flesh is not very aesthetically pleasing to me, but the issue is so much deeper than that. If meat-eaters are so "aesthetically" sensitive, then why do they swerve to avoid hitting a dead animal on the road and not avoid the one on their dinner plate even when it's drowning in its own blood (sorry - I mean gravy)? That's the truth and that's aesthetics. One looks disgusting on the road, and the other has been disguised. --------- Just to remind everyone - in case you don't know it. March 20th is the day to observe the second annual GREAT AMERICAN MEATOUT. Lots of national attention was gained during last year's MEATOUT, and more is planned for this year. If anyone is interested in this, please contact the principal sponsor directly: Farm Animal Reform Movement Box 70123 Washington, DC 20088 Melinda Mark (301) 530-1737 Gita Devi
ray@vger.UUCP (Ray Swartz) (01/28/86)
The recent discussion on why people don't eat meat mentioned that there are no facts that suggest that eating meat is better for you (or the world). I disagree. Animals that eat meat have a different metabolism and digestive structure than humans. First, look at the teeth. Carnivors have very sharp teeth for ripping and killing. Humans have teeth more closely resembling herbivores (like apes who don't eat meat at all). In addition, the length of the digestive tract is another indication of what food an animal processes. Carnivores have very short digestive tracts whereas humans have a long one that expects foods requiring different lengths of time and method for digestion. A short digestive tract is designed for speed of processing to lower the problem of putrid material in the body. Also, carivores (example: dogs/cats) tend to sleep just after eating so they can digest and expell their food quickly. Another point is that meat takes far more resources to make. One comparison I've heard is that it takes 10 times the land and water resources to create 1 pound of protein with meat than with soybeans. Thus, one of the main reasons people go hungry is that we are taking food from them and giving it to animals for fattening. For those of you who do eat meat and get saddened by those starving throughout the world, look to thyself for the answer. It is hard to think of peace when you are hungry or when your food is killed. I hope this is not more than my 2 cents worth. In real life - Ray Swartz (NOTE: the listed reply may be bogus: in reality: CSnet: ray@uscs.CSnet ARPAnet: ray%vger%uscsc.uucp@usbvax.EDU)
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (01/29/86)
In article <733@decwrl.DEC.COM> devi@maisha.DEC (Gita L. Devi PKO1/D1 223-7046) writes: >>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. > >Absolutely not! This is a net group for vegetarians, and as such, we have >every right to express what we want to say. That "no-vegetarians" is meant to be "non-vegetarians." If net.veg is going to contain a discussion on the morality of meat eating, there should at least be some cross-posting to net.misc, because many people who might enjoy the discussion would not think of looking in net.veg, because they would assume that net.veg is for those who are already convinced that meat eating is not good. I in no way meant to say that vegetarians don't have a right to express whatever they want to express. Sorry if I gave that impression. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim