[net.veg] Animals And Ethical Considerations: Vegitarianism

slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) (01/10/86)

>From: avr@purdue.UUCP (Andrew V. Royappa)
>>     
>>     	2. Ethical considerations
>
>	Rubbish. Just because some great people are *queasy* about
>eating meat doesn't mean that it's wrong. What about the vast number
>of carnivorous animals out there ? Are they all amoral, too, or do
>these ethical considerations apply to humans only ? Face it, it's
>a fact that animals kill for food. Why should humans have to feel
>guilty about it ? I also have no doubt that cattle are slaughtered far
>more humanely than the way I see carnivores killing their prey on
>those TV nature shows.

	I won't go into details, but even though it is possible to
	argue that the actual *slaughter* is more humane, the living
	conditions of the animals prior to slaughter is not something
	that I would consider ``humane''.  The idea that beef cattle is
	allowed to roam free and graze is generally a farce.  Chickens
	are kept in cages four per, and so small they literally can not
	turn around.  (If you would like references I can supply them.)
	I'd feel a lot better about eating meat if I had the ability to
	raise and slaughter it myself.  In that way I would know that
	until it's death, the animal was treated well.  Since I can not
	do that at this time, I refrain from eating meat.  These are
	my ``ethical'' considerations.

>	A better thing to get mad about is humans killing animals for 
>pleasure or "sport" or furs or skins or perfumes or tusks ... 

	I do.  But I don't see why you do.  If it's okay to eat meat,
	why isn't it okay to kill an animal for it's skin?


						Sean.

P.S. Followups have been changed to net.veg.  It seems a more appropriate
     group.
-- 

    Sean L. Gilley     	      Phone: (606) 272-9620 or (606) 257-8781

      {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma{!ukgs}!slg, slg@UKMA.BITNET

               But somehow, it's not just the words, is it?

smithson@calma.UUCP (Brian Smithson) (01/13/86)

In article <2459@ukma.UUCP> slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes:
>
>P.S. Followups have been changed to net.veg.  It seems a more appropriate
>     group.
>
Oh sh*t.  Why can't there be a "net.carne" for this stuff?  Net.veg has been
a nice, quiet newsgroup with exchanges of recipes and other stuff of interest
to vegeterians, regardless of the reasons for their vegetarianism.  Oh well...
I have to agree, however, that net.misc was a truly inappropriate group for
this discussion.  I asked it there, and I'll ask it here:  where did this
discussion originate (i.e, net.what?).  Perhaps follow-ups should be sent
there instead of here?

avr@purdue.UUCP (Andrew V. Royappa) (01/15/86)

In article <2459@ukma.UUCP>, slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes:
> >From: avr@purdue.UUCP (Andrew V. Royappa)
> >	A better thing to get mad about is humans killing animals for 
> >pleasure or "sport" or furs or skins or perfumes or tusks ... 
> 
> 	I do.  But I don't see why you do.  If it's okay to eat meat,
> 	why isn't it okay to kill an animal for it's skin?
> 
> 						Sean.
> 

	Sigh. 

	I consider eating meat a natural thing for humans to do. We have
after all been doing it for a long time. Just because I have nothing
against killing animals for food doesn't mean I have no regard whatsoever
for animals. I consider it wasteful to kill animals for luxuries,
especially when there seem to be synthetic versions of furs etc. around. 
I don't consider meat a luxury, despite the arguments which have appeared on
the net so far.

					Andrew V. Royappa
			{ihnp4, pur-ee, ucbvax, decvax}!purdue!avr

locken@agrigene.UUCP (01/16/86)

> In article <2459@ukma.UUCP> slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes:
> >
> >P.S. Followups have been changed to net.veg.  It seems a more appropriate
> >     group.
> >
> Oh sh*t.  Why can't there be a "net.carne" for this stuff?  Net.veg has been
> a nice, quiet newsgroup with exchanges of recipes and other stuff of interest
> to vegeterians, regardless of the reasons for their vegetarianism.  Oh well...
> I have to agree, however, that net.misc was a truly inappropriate group for
> this discussion.  I asked it there, and I'll ask it here:  where did this
> discussion originate (i.e, net.what?).  Perhaps follow-ups should be sent
> there instead of here?

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***