Killing: vs. Murder (WAS: Vores)

[Guest guest]

Janet,

 

I notice this comment from someone, quoted in your response, below:

___

As far as murder goes: there are many logical and philosophical problems

with calling eating meat murder. If killing for food a " lower " animal is to

be murder, what will we call it when a " lower " animal kills a human for

food?

___

 

Our species is endowed with the capacity to explore consciousness. I am

aware of no carnivore species that is so endowed. So I would call it an

exercise in self-protection, because most animals that would attack humans

do so ONLY when they perceive us encroaching upon them. In other words, they

are living in accordance with THEIR design. Perhaps it is time for us to

live in accordance with ours ... to develop ALL our capacities, including

the so-called " higher capacities " . Just a thought.

 

Or, we can continue killing, wiping out life at a rate measurable in

species-per-day.

 

I would also comment briefly upon this whole discussion about " killing " and

" murder " . I am not advocating a debate over whether killing animals is

" murder " . Rather, I am advocating that we cease all manner of conscious,

willful killing ... animals, humans, bacteria ... ALL of it.

 

Best,

Elchanan

 

_____

 

Janet FitzGerald

Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:21 AM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Vores (WAS: Eskimo Longevity and Meat Consumption

 

 

>> All I say is, a small amount isn't going to hurt you if you do decide to

have it,

 

According to Campbell's research in " The China Study " , even small amounts of

animal protein have detrimental effects on health. Small amounts of cooked

meat are acid forming in the body, as is all cooked food. Small amounts of

meat take long to digest and must travel a great distance through the body,

unlike the digestive tracts of carnivores. Digesting meat is taxing to the

body.

 

If eating meat is " natural " , then why is too much meat a bad thing? And,

where is that fine line of " too much " ? I don't doubt that the body has the

resiliency to bounce back from ill health if given the proper diet and

lifestyle. I just question our eating choices based solely on health,

because I am human and have the capability to discern right and wrong on an

abstract level (money laundering, lying, stealing, etc.). It behooves us

all to question the SANCTITY of life. If we don't NEED to eat flesh, then we

should question eating it.

 

>> Arguments that only eating raw is " natural " do not fit well with

evolutionary history, and so can not really be called " natural " by

definition.

 

My opinion is that there was a time when cooking was not part of history and

that humans have evolved upon the fruits, plants, and vegetables that were

available in their natural environment, year round.

 

>> As far as murder goes: there are many logical and philosophical problems

with calling eating meat murder. If killing for food a " lower " animal is to

be murder, what will we call it when a " lower " animal kills a human for

food?

 

I meant to only question the use of the word " fanaticism " . Murder is a word

that is only appropriate within the human world. I've seen those " Meat is

Murder " bumper stickers. It is more accurate, IMO, to say, " Meat is Killed "

or " Meat is Killing " . Obviously, " murder " creates a stronger emotional

response, and perhaps helps to create better consciousness among flesh

eaters.

 

Of course, Jeffrey Daumer might have a different take on this! ;-)

 

Janet

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> " murder " . Rather, I am advocating that we cease all manner of conscious,

> willful killing ... animals, humans, bacteria ... ALL of it.

>

> Best,

> Elchanan

 

 

 

But what about the willful killing of fruits and veggies! They

certainly are more highly developed than bacteria!!! And what about

the bacteria we unknowingly consume because bacteria covers nearly

EVERYTHING in existence on this planet.

 

But yes, willful killing without PURPOSE is wrong. But is killing an

animal FOR a purpose, i.e., feeding your family, wrongÉ (when there is

nothing else to feed them)

 

And remember, life consumes life for life to exist. The only life

that actually consumes inert matter are some forms of bacteria...so

perhaps those bacteria are the most noble of us all...

 

Joe

[Guest guest]

>

> But what about the willful killing of fruits and veggies! They

> certainly are more highly developed than bacteria!!! And what about

> the bacteria we unknowingly consume because bacteria covers nearly

> EVERYTHING in existence on this planet.

 

Once again, this argument is just so insulting to conscious sentient

beings. I repeat - that is to say that what OJ did to Nicole Simpson

is fine because of course we all mow our lawns, making us equally

guilty. Plants and veggies have no nervous system. Joe, if I remember

correctly, you watched the movie Earthlings. And you still advocate

killing animals? Do you see the same fear and terror in the vegetables

non-eyes as you saw in those screaming, innocent cows, pigs and

dolphins? Really, this argument is simply not one. And it is

thoroughly disappointing when grown, educated adults fall back upon

something so fallible when left with nothing else to defend their

unnecessary killing of other sentient beings.

>

> But yes, willful killing without PURPOSE is wrong. But is killing an

> animal FOR a purpose, i.e., feeding your family, wrongÉ (when there

is

> nothing else to feed them)

 

Wherever there are animals there is vegetation. People can sprout in

the middle of a desert. Of course there is plenty to feed your family,

without the guilt of killing OR poisoning your family (meat = disease-

causing, that is just the abc's of disease). Very few are truly in a

predicament where the answer is meat or starvation. If there are

animals around, there IS vegetation around, basically. One person's

tastebuds (the real reason pretty much all animals are killed) is not

a purpose, either. It is simply a selfish luxury - one not without

awfu side-effects.

>

> And remember, life consumes life for life to exist. The only life

> that actually consumes inert matter are some forms of bacteria...so

> perhaps those bacteria are the most noble of us all...

>

This is true. But life does not manipulate life to exist, as we do by

breeding and forcing too many animals into too small a space and

genetically mutating them to serve our needs. That is life

manipulating life for money and profit, with no respect to the life at

hand. That is entirely different and cannot be compared to a lion and

a gazelle in Africa, etc.

[Guest guest]

If killing for food a " lower " animal is to

> be murder, what will we call it when a " lower " animal kills a human

for

> food?

 

Murder and Killing/Eating are different. A " lower " animal would never

kill for the sake of killing. They kill either other animals or

humans, " higher " animals (in your words), because to them it is dinner

and they are carnivores.

 

If we were truly carnivores, we would probably salivate at each other

(other humans) when really hungry, no? Because I cannot think of one

other carnivore that wouldn't eat human meat if given the opportunity

(unless their mouth is just too small)...

 

Something to think about, huh?

Erica

[Guest guest]

WOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Settle down Erica!!!! hehehe

 

 

Since when have I become the guy that wants to slaughter animals for

the sake of slaughtering animals? My post previous to this one

explains a bit about how this all got started.

 

 

Joe

 

 

 

 

rawfood , " Erica " <schoolofrawk wrote:

>

>

> >

> > But what about the willful killing of fruits and veggies! They

> > certainly are more highly developed than bacteria!!! And what about

> > the bacteria we unknowingly consume because bacteria covers nearly

> > EVERYTHING in existence on this planet.

>

> Once again, this argument is just so insulting to conscious sentient

> beings. I repeat - that is to say that what OJ did to Nicole Simpson

> is fine because of course we all mow our lawns, making us equally

> guilty. Plants and veggies have no nervous system. Joe, if I remember

> correctly, you watched the movie Earthlings. And you still advocate

> killing animals? Do you see the same fear and terror in the vegetables

> non-eyes as you saw in those screaming, innocent cows, pigs and

> dolphins? Really, this argument is simply not one. And it is

> thoroughly disappointing when grown, educated adults fall back upon

> something so fallible when left with nothing else to defend their

> unnecessary killing of other sentient beings.

> >

> > But yes, willful killing without PURPOSE is wrong. But is killing an

> > animal FOR a purpose, i.e., feeding your family, wrongÉ (when there

> is

> > nothing else to feed them)

>

> Wherever there are animals there is vegetation. People can sprout in

> the middle of a desert. Of course there is plenty to feed your family,

> without the guilt of killing OR poisoning your family (meat = disease-

> causing, that is just the abc's of disease). Very few are truly in a

> predicament where the answer is meat or starvation. If there are

> animals around, there IS vegetation around, basically. One person's

> tastebuds (the real reason pretty much all animals are killed) is not

> a purpose, either. It is simply a selfish luxury - one not without

> awfu side-effects.

> >

> > And remember, life consumes life for life to exist. The only life

> > that actually consumes inert matter are some forms of bacteria...so

> > perhaps those bacteria are the most noble of us all...

> >

> This is true. But life does not manipulate life to exist, as we do by

> breeding and forcing too many animals into too small a space and

> genetically mutating them to serve our needs. That is life

> manipulating life for money and profit, with no respect to the life at

> hand. That is entirely different and cannot be compared to a lion and

> a gazelle in Africa, etc.

>

[Guest guest]

On Monday 17 September 2007 22:40, Erica wrote:

> This is true. But life does not manipulate life to exist,

> as we do by breeding and forcing too many animals into

> too small a space and genetically mutating them to serve

> our needs. That is life manipulating life for money and

> profit, with no respect to the life at hand. That is

> entirely different and cannot be compared to a lion and a

> gazelle in Africa, etc.

 

I agree with everything you've said in your case for using

the word murder. ( but I did stop eating meat what seems

like a long time ago. Funny but there is no way I'd eat

meat now, even though sometimes I smell neighbours cooking

their sunday roasts and there is still a positive physical

response to the smell, but NO WAY), in fact I'd eat dirt

before I ate meat, LOL. (oops I already do)

 

Just remember though people only get upset about animal

death because they imagine whatever horror they are seeing

happening to them, the mental stories start up with the

accompanying emotions.

 

To paraphrase a favourite teacher

" what's wrong with it unless you think about it? "

 

 

maybe you'll like this;

 

http://www.wildgrace.org/excerpt-food.html

 

it's a passage from a book " Wild Grace, Nature as a

Spiritual Path " , one of the few I actually bought,

 

It's titled " Life Giving Life " and there's some lovely

pictures too.

 

neal.

[Guest guest]

rawfood , neal <kneel.pardoe wrote:

>

> maybe you'll like this;

>

> http://www.wildgrace.org/excerpt-food.html

>

> it's a passage from a book " Wild Grace, Nature as a

> Spiritual Path " , one of the few I actually bought,

>

> It's titled " Life Giving Life " and there's some lovely

> pictures too.

>

> neal.

 

Thanks. And following the golden rule, it's not necessarily a bad

thing to imagine it happening to you. We all feel the same, that is

what matters. Awesome, info. Thanks for your response - Erica

[Guest guest]

rawfood , " Joe Postma " <joepostma wrote:

>

> WOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Settle down Erica!!!! hehehe

>

>

> Since when have I become the guy that wants to slaughter animals for

> the sake of slaughtering animals? My post previous to this one

> explains a bit about how this all got started.

 

Joe -

 

I never said you were, I was simply continuing the discussion. :-)

And what about my response was so " out there " ? I was simply employing

rationale, and countering the previous argument. To be expected, no?

Isn't that what we are all doing? I understand your arguments, and I

never indicated you were trigger happy on the animals.. :-)

:-) Erica

[Guest guest]

Hi Erica Darling,

 

This was what I reacted to:

 

" And you still advocate killing animals? Do you see the same fear and

terror in the vegetables

non-eyes as you saw in those screaming, innocent cows, pigs and

dolphins? Really, this argument is simply not one. And it is

thoroughly disappointing when grown, educated adults fall back upon

something so fallible when left with nothing else to defend their

unnecessary killing of other sentient beings. "

 

 

You're totally on-point about everything You just have a great way

of making things so startlingly clear sometimes, and it rattles the

bones! I love it though!!

 

Cheers

 

Joe

 

 

 

 

rawfood , " Erica " <schoolofrawk wrote:

>

> rawfood , " Joe Postma " <joepostma@> wrote:

> >

> > WOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Settle down Erica!!!! hehehe

> >

> >

> > Since when have I become the guy that wants to slaughter animals for

> > the sake of slaughtering animals? My post previous to this one

> > explains a bit about how this all got started.

>

> Joe -

>

> I never said you were, I was simply continuing the discussion. :-)

> And what about my response was so " out there " ? I was simply employing

> rationale, and countering the previous argument. To be expected, no?

> Isn't that what we are all doing? I understand your arguments, and I

> never indicated you were trigger happy on the animals.. :-)

> :-) Erica

>

[Guest guest]

You just have a great way

> of making things so startlingly clear sometimes, and it rattles the

> bones! I love it though!!

>

> Cheers

>

> Joe

 

Dearest Joe -

Oh. Thanks for being the great sport that you are, and for clarifying

how you feel about it (which is great to hear). Yeah, my dad, who

doesn't pass out compliments easily, always told me I should be a

lawyer...right before sending me to my room for eons and eons. LOL!

Erica