Guest guest Posted March 6, 2002 Report Share Posted March 6, 2002 why are you on this list if youre going to nit-pick everyones emails that you dont agree with? didnt you jsut condemn me for doing the same thing? my last email was an attempt to defend myself. in your own words nobody should have to defend themselves unless attacked. so what is your excuse for attacking me when you keep trying to imply that people are entitled to their opinions? spiggy -- Priscilla Pelkey spiggy - email (210) 576-2701 x5770 - voicemail/fax ---- " sarah monster " <chocofungi wrote: [Non text/plain message body suppressed] FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place. Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2002 Report Share Posted March 6, 2002 i'm answering this mail first as it's shorter than your other one, therefore easier & quicker to reply to > why are you on this list if youre going to nit-pick everyones emails > that you dont agree with? what on earth have i done that would give you the impression that that is what i am doing? i've been on this list for months now and as far as i remember this is my first mail that has questioned something someone else has said. so the " everyone's emails " part is wrong. " nit picking " ? i certainly don't believe i was nit picking. nit picking is more pointing out grammatical and spelling errors, not raising questions. and i have the right to ask questions, btw, it's what discussion lists are for - discussion > didnt you jsut condemn me for doing the same > thing? no, i don't think i did, did i? > my last email was an attempt to defend myself. in your own words > nobody should have to defend themselves unless attacked. so what is your > excuse for attacking me when you keep trying to imply that people are > entitled to their opinions? who said i was attacking you? not me. i stand by my point that people are entitled to their opinions, yourself included, and that people should be able to voice those opinions (what this list is for) and not have other people *force* different opinions on them. i was not forcing opinions on you. i was questioning your methods and your authority. however you didn't seem to like this. remember that the only way we grow and learn is by allowing people to expose us to different view points and new experiences. calm down. you seem way too angry over this. sarah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2002 Report Share Posted March 6, 2002 when i reply to an email i reply to the general thing, not going line by line. with my emails i was just voicing my opinions. i was being honest. if you disagree that is FINE, but i dont thinks its fair for you to call me abominable, self-centered, pigheaded, and then tell ME im too angry over this... FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place. Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2002 Report Share Posted March 6, 2002 > when i reply to an email i reply to the general thing, not going line > by line. and that's why so much confusion arises over emails. if you reply to the bit you are refering to with the words you want to use, there is much less space for confusion and misinterpretation > if you disagree that is FINE, but i dont thinks its fair for you to call > me abominable, self-centered, pigheaded, and then tell ME im too angry > over this... > i didn't call you abominable, just your actions. there is a hell of a lot of difference. as for the other two, well there's a lot worse i could call you if you want? sarah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 Sarah wrote: >everyone should do all we can to challenge what is accepted by society, but you >missed my point. i wasn't saying we should accept reality but accept other peoples' choices and >respect their decisions. how would you like it if someone constantly was pressuring you to eat meat? >it wouldn't be fun for you, would it? you would tell the person you had made a choice and they >should accept that. why should it be different for meat eaters? Sarah, you've missed my point. Let me repeat myself since I don't think you read my message carefully. The bottom of all this, to me, is a matter of rights. I agree that I support free choice UNTIL SUCH FREE CHOICE VIOLATES THAT OF ANOTHER, IN THIS CASE, THE ANIMALS. It should be different for meat-eaters because they have VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS, although this seems to be such a debatable issue when it isn't. Think of slavery - if I went against it back when slavery was rampant, and someone gave me a lecture about free choice (not likely, though, free choice wasn't that much of a 'thing' then...but just to serve as an example), I would tell them that it is NOT a matter of free choice because the act of slavery directly strips the rights of slaves. People have debated whether or not slaves should have rights NOT because it was a debatable issue, but because most of those who bought slaves (yeah, some may not have treated their slaves poorly at all, but the very fact that the idea of slavery was supported is bad enough) enjoyed a privilege by violating the slaves' rights. Those people were unwilling to relinquish this 'advantage' by refusing to recognize that slaves ARE human beings who have legitimate rights. So, back then, free choice wasn't in danger. Rights were. And in our case, free choice of killing animals is not the issue, but animal rights are. Sarah wrote: >so if i interpret you correctly, in your world everyone would have to be vegan with no alternatives? >it sounds very narrow minded to me. as a side issue, i would rather say people would be free to eat >meat and dairy as long as they did not rely on other people to get the products for them, but kept >and milked and slaughtered the animals themselves. Here's how absurd what you just wrote sounds to me (not putting words in your mouth, these words came from mine...merely an adaptation to another scenario): " So if I interpret you correctly, in your world everyone would have to abide by this thing, what's it called? the Law? No one can kill anyone? No one can take what they want if it is in the possession of another? There would be no freedom then? It sounds very narrow-minded to me. " Freedom or chaos - you pick. So much can be done in the name of free choice and in the name of " open-mindedness. " Should free choice be THE 'personal rule' people live by, and if the judicial system is still in effect, we wouldn't have enough prisons. Look carefully, to respect ONLY the rights of humans is, to me, the epitome of narrow-mindedness. Other beings are seen and treated as commodities, not lives - anyone openminded would see that animals, including humans, are lives. Sarah wrote: >actually i don't think whether or not you personally drink milk or eat eggs will make the slightest >bit of difference to whether or not your government decides to outlaw such things. As ridiculous as this may sound to you, I live as if animal exploitation were already outlawed. No, not eating meat, dairy, eggs and not using any animal-derived products does not bother the government much, if at all. But nothing would ever be accomplished should I myself not participate in the movement myself. Sarah wrote: >my friend has this to say: >if people want to believe that animals are capable of rational thought and are self-aware, then yes, >they're perfectly entitled to say all of that. and other people also perfectly entitled to ridicule >them for those beliefs. Tell your friend this: rational thought and awareness is something that WE have failed to determine, it is a fault of humans, not the animals. There was a time when babies were thought to not have consciousness until they reach the age when they can speak. The fact that people actually believed that babies did not exhibit any self-awareness was a result of THEIR own ignorance, not the babies'. There is no evidence of X does not prove that X is false. Only when there is sufficient evidence to disprove X can your friend say that without making a fool of him/herself. Our inability to know for sure is OUR flaw - it is utterly irresponsible to refuse, or fail, to realize that WE don't know X = not X. Sarah wrote: >not always. i point out the obvious here - jehovah's witnesses who preach to non converts; sikhism >which states that when a male reaches a certain age (18? 21? i'm not sure) he must go out and kill >another person to prove he is a " man " ; judaism which multilates genitalia of babies, and so on. You make it sound as if I said the actions that follow a person's interpretation of their religion cannot be brought before the court. I said the CHOICE itself is an individual's business. When THAT choice goes so far as to infringe the rights of another being it is NOT acceptable. Sarah wrote: >they could say the same to you, that they should show you no mercy because you actively seek to >subvert societal values and convert people to your cause. >what it comes down to is that we must accept other people for what they have chosen to be, do, say >etc. unconditional love. No, Sarah, it is NOT MY cause - I don't feel the physical pain that the animals go through. Although I do not know for sure that animals are even aware of this group of animal rightists not eating them, I ASSUME that they do to encompass OUR own inability to know for certain whether they do or not. We must accept other people for what they have chosen to be - 100% with you. That we must accept other people for the actions they choose to perform - I'm cool with that until...yeah, I am repeating myself, but just in case I haven't made it clear enough...it robs the rights of another living being. Sarah wrote: >vegetarians have a terrible reputation for trying to convert >people and this stereotype must be challenged. we must accept people as who they are, and only air >our views when they are asked for, providing of course that others do the same. to constantly preach >is a terrible infringement of rights. To preach WHAT is the question. Are we preaching something that is personal and thus subjective? Or are we preaching something rational and thus objective? I preach the latter. Honor - sarah monster vegan-network Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:15 AM [100% veg*n ] to convert or not to convert? > Indeed. Free will, eh? Well, my stance is that the very reason why I'm vegan in the first place is to ponder whether or not animals should have their free will. Though many may certainly disagree, my answer is yes, animals should have THEIR free choice. i agree with you, it's one of the reasons i too turned vegan. > The very reason that animals still meet their untimely death and endure torture before their execution is simply because they have not been granted rights. The fact that they do not have rights now does not mean that they should not have rights and again i agree. more legislation needs to be in place to ensure such things do not happen > it simply means humans haven't yet been able to see past their own hypocrisy. not sure if i'd call it hypocrisy, but fair enough > No, it's not a part of being an adult of accepting reality just because it just 'is.' again i agree. everyone should do all we can to challenge what is accepted by society, but you missed my point. i wasn't saying we should accept reality but accept other peoples' choices and respect their decisions. how would you like it if someone constantly was pressuring you to eat meat? it wouldn't be fun for you, would it? you would tell the person you had made a choice and they should accept that. why should it be different for meat eaters? > What IS a part of being an adult, if you'd like to define the roles that pertain to adulthood, is to attempt to change the reality that should not have been. well here comes the debatable term. what should not have been. what one person says should happen is different to another. a compromise needs to be reached between all parties. when you go round speaking in definates, in shoulds and shouldn'ts, that's when you start gaining enemies. > what I think is at hand - veganism - is not a matter of personal taste. It's a legal issue that has not been properly addressed. so if i interpret you correctly, in your world everyone would have to be vegan with no alternatives? it sounds very narrow minded to me. as a side issue, i would rather say people would be free to eat meat and dairy as long as they did not rely on other people to get the products for them, but kept and milked and slaughtered the animals themselves. > Yes, I am aware that animal law is not as firmly in place as I make it sound, but it should be, and that is why I'm vegan. actually i don't think whether or not you personally drink milk or eat eggs will make the slightest bit of difference to whether or not your government decides to outlaw such things. my friend has this to say: if people want to believe that animals are capable of rational thought and are self-aware, then yes, they're perfectly entitled to say all of that. and other people also perfectly entitled to ridicule them for those beliefs. > animal rights issues should be categorized under the legal section instead of individual beliefs such as religion. i think that laws should be introduced to ensure animals have better quality of life etc, but whether or not they are eaten *is* a personal choice. > A religion is an individual path, it is different in that it can be practiced without directly infringing the rights of others. not always. i point out the obvious here - jehovah's witnesses who preach to non converts; sikhism which states that when a male reaches a certain age (18? 21? i'm not sure) he must go out and kill another person to prove he is a " man " ; judaism which multilates genitalia of babies, and so on. > People going childfree is an individual decision that is no one else's business. tell that to all the parents who throw their arms in the air when someone says they dont want kids... > But eating animals - we know damn well that, yes, animals ARE involved in the most conceivably direct way - the animals are slaughtered. It's not being pigheaded and self-centered - it's called common sense. first off, common sense is not as it sounds, and is societal creation. what might seem common sense in one country is alien to someone from another. and i wasn't using the terms pigheaded and self-centred in relation to meat eating, but in relation to trying to change peoples' habits. vegetarians have a terrible reputation for trying to convert people and this stereotype must be challenged. we must accept people as who they are, and only air our views when they are asked for, providing of course that others do the same. to constantly preach is a terrible infringement of rights. and seeing as you're very concerned with the fact that the animals rights are violated, why make the situation worse and violate the rights of yet another creature? > Don't take it to the average standard of common sense though, because at that level, it is not logic but the true essence of pigheadedness and self-centeredness. i don't quite follow here. could you explain further please? > I have to act as if it were in order to avoid non-vegans 'confirming' that vegans are radical and that vegans are elitists. personally i see nothing wrong with radicalism, but how is veganism elitist? other than some rather strange people refuse to talk to people who's beliefs dont coincide with their own, which to me is appalling behaviour > If being an elitist makes one sane, then sure, go ahead and call me one. so it is irrational to eat meat? i can think of a few rational arguements for it. they don't hold sway with me, but they do with the majority of the population > Any non-vegan who challenges the 'why's' of veganism will get an extensive and rational list of reasons from me without mercy. which i applaud. this is what i am advocating. we explain our position, but only *when asked*. > Non-vegans should be the ones to defend their positions, not us. why should anyone have to defend themselves? defending must have an reason, which is attacking. no one has the right to attack someone else's beliefs. question, yes, but not attack > I show them no mercy because they themselves have shown none to the animals whose meat sit on their plates every meal. they could say the same to you, that they should show you no mercy because you actively seek to subvert societal values and convert people to your cause. what it comes down to is that we must accept other people for what they have chosen to be, do, say etc. unconditional love. sarah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 I think I failed to clarify one thing - all that I've written in my responses are things that I would NEVER say or suggest to non-vegans. Simply because, more often than not, many non-vegans take veganism as a personal attack. My family is carnivorous, my friends maybe eat one carrot a month as their maximum vegetable intake and, no, I don't shove veganism into their face because I know it would backfire. People tend not to realize I'm vegan...because I don't bring up the topic. I eat every single meal everyday at a table full of meat-eaters, but I don't make a fuss about it no matter how disgusted I feel. Just wrote this in case you think I'm one of those 'radical vegans' who make everyone hate us. Well, no, I handle veganism very well. As far as food goes, I never give the people at the table a lecture about the cruelty of the meat industry - it's pointless, all that would do is turn people off and give them a bad impression on vegans (although I'm only one vegan, people are still prejudiced these days). As far as shopping goes, my mom LOVES fur - she comes home with bags full of fur jackets every winter and admires herself in the mirror with the skin wrapped around her. She still asks me how she looks and I tell her, " You look good, mom. " My parents adore designer shoes and my mom is a strong believer of the Gucci and Prada faiths - leather. I go shopping WITH her for goodness sake! Yeah, I can opt out, but what I enjoy is spending time with my mother and I treasure the bond between us. I have told her about the cruelty behind fur and leather, but she refuses to listen. I don't bug people with veganism unless they bring it up. Every time I open the fridge, MY vegan foods always have meat as close neighbors and the stink of meat is unbearable. What I'm trying to say is this: I only wrote what I wrote because I thought it 'safe' for me express my true feelings here. So...I was quite shocked to get the responses that I got...furthermore, all that talk about free choice is something I put up with with non-vegans just for the image...I honestly didn't think that would actually be something some of us here truly believe in. Honor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 I'm with you Honor You argued well Its always disappointing to have arguments with people who you assume will be on your side. FWIW I would keep making comments about the fur and not tell my mum she looked good without the oroviso thet " it looked better on the animals (all 50? ) of them " I always asked my mum why there was a dead body in the fridge . But we have to judge each case as it arises . Falling out with close friends/family will not help . - Honor Chan Hoi Yee vegan-network Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:30 AM Re: [100% veg*n ] to convert or not to convert? I think I failed to clarify one thing - all that I've written in my responses are things that I would NEVER say or suggest to non-vegans. Simply because, more often than not, many non-vegans take veganism as a personal attack. My family us. I have told her about the cruelty behind fur and leather, but she refuses to listen. I don't bug people with veganism unless they bring it up. Every time I open the fridge, MY vegan foods always have meat as close neighbors and the stink of meat is unbearable. What I'm trying to say is this: I only wrote what I wrote because I thought it 'safe' for me express my true feelings here. So...I was quite shocked to get the responses that I got...furthermore, all that talk about free choice is something I put up with with non-vegans just for the image...I honestly didn't think that would actually be something some of us here truly believe in. Honor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 honor's mail: > Freedom or chaos - you pick. i don't see that they are irreconciable opposites, or that you must always have one or the other. with issues like this, extremism will generate extreme views so a middle ground needs to be found that is acceptable to all. > So much can be done in the name of free choice and in the name of " open-mindedness. " Should > free choice be THE 'personal rule' people live by, and if the judicial system is still in effect, we > wouldn't have enough prisons. just becuase some people use free choice as an excuse for bad behaviour does not mean it should be outlawed. people use hammers to kill people, are we going to ban hammers? no, because they have a greater use beyond what a small minority use them for. what it boils down to is would you rather be able to decide for yourself how to live your life or would want the government to dictate it to you? this seems to me to be what you are suggesting. because if all of a sudden we're not allowed to eat meat, what is there to suggest it would stop there? it would become as bad as the jewish laws two thousand years ago. > Look carefully, to respect ONLY the rights of humans is, to me, the epitome of narrow-mindedness. no, i respect the rights of more than just humans. all creatures have a right to quality of life and standards of living and this should be enforced more rigidly. however they also have a right to decide on their way of life, as illustrated in the human rights act. but let's say that it became law over the world that no person was allowed to eat anything from animals, under any condition, which is what i think you are suggesting. the underfed section of the world (half? third? not quite sure of the proportions) would not have immediate access to the food that the western civilisation has. they would still be starving, and it might take decades to ensure that every person has access to as much food as any other person. are you going to ban the starving people from eating an animal that might keep them alive long enough to get other food sources? other places in the world have poor soil and can not grow sufficient crops to feed the popluation and they have to rely on fishing or farming for food. are you going to let them starve to death too? > Other beings are seen and treated as commodities, not lives - anyone openminded would see that animals, including humans, are lives. yes, i agree. but if an animal has died a natural death, why would it be bad to allow people to eat its meat? we can't eat other humans as the spread of disease is far greater than than spread through animals. and if a human died naturally, an animal would not think for even a moment it might be bad to eat the human. and seeing as you brought the topic up, plants are alive too. so should we not eat plants and their fruits and berries? after all that's alive and we don't want to harm any living thing. your view is very absolutist. it would be hypocrisy to say animals are alive so we can't eat them, and plants are alive but i don't mind that we eat them. so what would be left to eat then? nothing. if the planet decides of its own accord to stop eating meat, then good, but it shouldnt be forced upon them. > You make it sound as if I said the actions that follow a person's interpretation of their religion cannot be brought before the court. I said the CHOICE itself is an individual's business. When THAT choice goes so far as to infringe the rights of another being it is NOT acceptable. playing devil's advocate, the rights of humans are very clearly set down in law, and the rights of animals are too. so if someone infringes on the rights of an animal, is that the legal rights or other rights, which are subjective and differ in strength from person to person? because you may think it would be wrong to keep an animal with the intent to eat it at some point, does not mean other people do. and until the law says that animals do not have the right to not be kept in such way, then there is no right to violate. the rights and laws have to be decided by the society as a whole, not by a small selection of people, no matter how well meaning they are. take ireland for example. yesterday they had a referrendum on whether or not it should remain legal for women to go abroad for abortions and whether or not threat of suicide is a valid reason for abortion. to me it seems obvious that women should have the right to abortion in those circumstances, but (i don't know the result of the ballot) if the country decides that this isn't acceptable in their society then we have to accept their decision, no matter how abhorrant it appears. > No, Sarah, it is NOT MY cause - I don't feel the physical pain that the animals go through. you support an extension of animal rights, yes? then it is your cause. you advocate it. > We must accept other people for what they have chosen to be - 100% with you. That we must accept other people for the actions they choose to perform - I'm cool with that until...yeah, I am repeating myself, but just in case I haven't made it clear enough...it robs the rights of another living being. yeah, i agree. but here's another situation for you. if we have an obligation to animals to not torture and kill them, do they have an obligation to us to not torture and kill humans? and if not, why not? what is the difference? a hungry wild animal would happily eat any wandering human it came across. that is the nature of animals. the fight for survival. so if the animals can not guaruntee they wouldn't eat us, why guaruntee them that we won't eat them? you couldn't put a lion in court for murder. what defense would it have? " it's the lion's nature to eat humans, your honour! " " very well but he should still have abided by the law of the land. " you can't have one law for animals and one for humans or again it's hypocrisy. the law must be the same for everyone. > > To preach WHAT is the question. Are we preaching something that is personal and thus subjective? Or are we preaching something rational and thus objective? I preach the latter. who says it is rational? as i said in a previous mail, i can think of some very rational arguments for eating meat. we should not preach *anything*. answer questions fully when asked but not preaching. being told that your methods are wrong when it is a matter of choice (and whether or not meat eating is outlawed in the future, today it is still a choice) is what needs to be avoided. just becuase i think it is rational that women should have access to abortion does not mean someone else would agree. is this clear or am i getting my words muddled? i'm not sure. i want to be coherant. misunderstandings are very frustrating. sarah (hopefully still being amicable) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 Angie wrote: >I would keep making comments about the fur and not tell my mum she looked good without the oroviso thet " it looked better on >the animals (all 50? ) of them " Yeah, I actually do tell her stuff like that, but she pretends she doesn't hear me, continues to twirl in front of the mirror until I go, " Mom, you look good " to test if her ears work...her ears usually do work when I tell her that and she goes, " I know, I do, don't I? " But I have shown her a big PETA anti-fur poster (went on an anti-fur protest with PETA here in Hong Kong...those PETA girls really gave me a new impression of PETA, I used to think it too radical) of a skinned fox - it was very, very gruesome. My mom was stunned by that poster and I told her to think of this image the next time she considers getting another fur coat or the next time she touches one. >I always asked my mum why there was a dead body in the fridge . teeheehee I can't even imagine the looks and [incoherent and irrational] lectures I'd get from them if I said that! Although I would much rather live alone or with vegans, sometimes I'll just have to adapt to things...besides, I do give my family the merit of having adjusted to me being vegan. Although they eat meat in front of me, they have learned to respect me enough NOT to touch my food with utensils that have touched meat, for example. And my mom, who loves buying me random gifts, now knows what to get for me - no more wool, silk, leather, etc. It's hard sometimes...if I wanted to be as pure a vegan as possible, there's such a great chance that I'd become a separatist...and that wouldn't help veganism at all. Honor - Angie Wright vegan-network Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:16 PM Re: [100% veg*n ] to convert or not to convert? I'm with you Honor You argued well Its always disappointing to have arguments with people who you assume will be on your side. FWIW I would keep making comments about the fur and not tell my mum she looked good without the oroviso thet " it looked better on the animals (all 50? ) of them " I always asked my mum why there was a dead body in the fridge . But we have to judge each case as it arises . Falling out with close friends/family will not help . Angie - Honor Chan Hoi Yee vegan-network Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:30 AM Re: [100% veg*n ] to convert or not to convert? I think I failed to clarify one thing - all that I've written in my responses are things that I would NEVER say or suggest to non-vegans. Simply because, more often than not, many non-vegans take veganism as a personal attack. My family us. I have told her about the cruelty behind fur and leather, but she refuses to listen. I don't bug people with veganism unless they bring it up. Every time I open the fridge, MY vegan foods always have meat as close neighbors and the stink of meat is unbearable. What I'm trying to say is this: I only wrote what I wrote because I thought it 'safe' for me express my true feelings here. So...I was quite shocked to get the responses that I got...furthermore, all that talk about free choice is something I put up with with non-vegans just for the image...I honestly didn't think that would actually be something some of us here truly believe in. Honor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.