Art was [100% veg*n ] 3 rants [Resend as first attempt seems to have not gotten through]

[Guest guest]

Jane,

 

I thank you for your questions, although I am confused as to their

connection with veganism. Anyway I do hope I am able to respond to them in

a satisfactory manner in order that I may clear up any problems or

confusion I may have caused.

 

> Did you read John's e-mail this morning???

 

Sadly I do not have a permanent 24 hour internet connection and as such I

wrote my email first thing, then went online to both send and download new

emails accumulated since I last checked (at about 11pm last

night). Therefore at the time of writing no I had not read John's

email. For this I can only apologize for this occurrence and any future

ones because until Kingston Communications see fit to offer ASDL for

computers, and that it is offered at an affordable price, there is little I

can do to prevent repeat offences.

 

> He told us to think before writing and reminded us that this is a vegan

list.

 

Yes and yes. I did think before writing and I was aware that this was a

vegan list.

 

Maybe though you could further assistance here though by telling me what is

meant by this being a vegan list? Is it purely for dietary concerns or are

the ethical considerations also valid topics? And if they are where does

the line get drawn between a valid vegan ethical concern and something

which is inappropriate. Recently expressed attitudes held that PVC was not

vegan because of the environmental impacts which, undeniably, do affect

animals. But is it vegan? If animals are not directly effected should it

count, or does consideration of indirect effects also apply? If so what

about money which could be spent on animal cause being spent on frivolous

items like a foun... oops, sorry I was stepping ahead of your questions there.

 

> I just wondered what your message had to do with veganism. Just curious

...........

 

Well unless I had mistakenly followed the discussion (sans the ugly

pettyness) then the position being taken was that the three million pounds

being spent on a tribute fountain was a waste as it could and should have

been better spent on other causes. These other causes while not

necessarily being directly affected vegan ones do come under the ethics of

veganism such as helping those in need (compassionate causes if you

will). Also I'm sure some people will have been thinking the money should

have been better spent towards animal causes. So in that way it was

connected to veganism. Also, and in continuation from my questions to you,

does vegan thinking about animals include humans? If so then surely purely

human welfare issues (such as giving money to those who cannot afford to

feed themselves) are very much to do with veganism, unless you wish to draw

arbitrary lines based on species.

 

But my question was asked simply because I was confused by the line of

argument given in opposition to this fountain. If all money has to be

spent in the ways being suggested there would be no room for public money

to ever go towards art and similar projects which have aesthetic rather

than direct practical cause. And I've not even yet asked the question of

whether the fountain could raise enough public money (via taxes) over time

through tourism to exceed construction costs allowing money to be spent on

good causes which would otherwise have not been possible.

 

You know in a sly kind of way my post could have been taken as defending

your position although it was not my direct intent. My cynicism towards

the media induced public attitudes to Diana's death is the same as those

who oppose the fountain.

 

Well I hope that sufficiently explains and justifies my position in a lucid

manner and I look forward to your response to my questions so that I may

avoid any further infractions on this list.

 

And to John I hope he does not find that I have done anything wrong,

although I do hope he would have realized the few hours between his mail

and mine is one of the unfortunate affects caused by the delay in receiving

email and so would have refrained from pouncing on me for it.

 

Michael