Judging Meat eaters...

March 19, 2004

-

" John Davis " <mcxg46

Friday, March 19, 2004 10:05 AM

Re: Re: Judging Meat eaters...

> Hi David,

>

> > Define, right. Define, wrong. Define, truth. In my understanding

> > they are all social construct. Before slavery was

> > considered " wrong " , it was considered " right " . In fact non-human

> > nature has significant examples of slavery, except we don't call it

> > that we call it symbiosis when the arrangement is relatively two way

> > or parasitism if it's relatively one-sided.

>In a simple answer...Wrong being that which harms.....Right being that

which does not.

Treating wrong and right as subjectivity as your example with ..slavery...

shows.. can be misleading. Truth must exist..if existents does...Defining it

is another thing altogether of course..like defining right and wrong...as to

their existences I don't doubt them. We can turn anything into subjectivity

and convince ourselves we don't really exist at all etc etc

If right and wrong are subjective..and as we mistakenly confuse the two at

times..that would make the subjective view wrong. Thats if we understand the

meaning of the two words.

I believe there is a right and wrong way to live ..thats is mapped out by

the laws of nature...which has a right way/a better way to live for

human/animal wolflanimal etc. And that

it is up to us to find it.>

>

S

March 19, 2004

Hi Simon,

That was kind of weird - you replied to David's comments as copied in one of

my replies to him.

Not a problem of course, but I just thought I'd check you know they were

David's comments, not mine!

John

-

" simonpjones " <simonpjones

Friday, March 19, 2004 3:26 PM

Re: Re: Judging Meat eaters...

> -

> " John Davis " <mcxg46

>

> Friday, March 19, 2004 10:05 AM

> Re: Re: Judging Meat eaters...

>

> > Hi David,

> >

> > > Define, right. Define, wrong. Define, truth. In my understanding

> > > they are all social construct. Before slavery was

> > > considered " wrong " , it was considered " right " . In fact non-human

> > > nature has significant examples of slavery, except we don't call it

> > > that we call it symbiosis when the arrangement is relatively two way

> > > or parasitism if it's relatively one-sided.

>

> >In a simple answer...Wrong being that which harms.....Right being that

> which does not.

>

> Treating wrong and right as subjectivity as your example with

...slavery...

> shows.. can be misleading. Truth must exist..if existents does...Defining

it

> is another thing altogether of course..like defining right and wrong...as

to

> their existences I don't doubt them. We can turn anything into

subjectivity

> and convince ourselves we don't really exist at all etc etc

> If right and wrong are subjective..and as we mistakenly confuse the two at

> times..that would make the subjective view wrong. Thats if we understand

the

> meaning of the two words.

>

> I believe there is a right and wrong way to live ..thats is mapped out by

> the laws of nature...which has a right way/a better way to live for

> human/animal wolflanimal etc. And that

> it is up to us to find it.>

> >

> S

>

> To send an email to -

>

March 19, 2004

K will look out for that.

S

-

" John Davis " <mcxg46

Friday, March 19, 2004 3:43 PM

Re: Re: Judging Meat eaters...

> Hi Simon,

>

> That was kind of weird - you replied to David's comments as copied in one

of

> my replies to him.

>

> Not a problem of course, but I just thought I'd check you know they were

> David's comments, not mine!

>

> John

> -

> " simonpjones " <simonpjones

>

> Friday, March 19, 2004 3:26 PM

> Re: Re: Judging Meat eaters...

>

> > -

> > " John Davis " <mcxg46

> >

> > Friday, March 19, 2004 10:05 AM

> > Re: Re: Judging Meat eaters...

> >

> > > Hi David,

> > >

> > > > Define, right. Define, wrong. Define, truth. In my understanding

> > > > they are all social construct. Before slavery was

> > > > considered " wrong " , it was considered " right " . In fact non-human

> > > > nature has significant examples of slavery, except we don't call it

> > > > that we call it symbiosis when the arrangement is relatively two way

> > > > or parasitism if it's relatively one-sided.

> >

> > >In a simple answer...Wrong being that which harms.....Right being that

> > which does not.

> >

> > Treating wrong and right as subjectivity as your example with

> ..slavery...

> > shows.. can be misleading. Truth must exist..if existents

does...Defining

> it

> > is another thing altogether of course..like defining right and

wrong...as

> to

> > their existences I don't doubt them. We can turn anything into

> subjectivity

> > and convince ourselves we don't really exist at all etc etc

> > If right and wrong are subjective..and as we mistakenly confuse the two

at

> > times..that would make the subjective view wrong. Thats if we understand

> the

> > meaning of the two words.

> >

> > I believe there is a right and wrong way to live ..thats is mapped out

by

> > the laws of nature...which has a right way/a better way to live for

> > human/animal wolflanimal etc. And that

> > it is up to us to find it.>

> > >

> > S

> >

> > To send an email to -

> >

March 19, 2004

Hi John

> Oh dear. No, you do not know for certain what happens after death. You

think

> you do, and you may be right, but there is simply no way to know anything

> for certain, let alone something so hard to find out about as what happens

> after death, which, by its very nature is entirely beyond the scope of our

> comprehension.

I often wonder how many people have actually had genuine " Near Death

Experiences " . You often hear people claiming to " Know " what happens after

death because they read it somewhere, but have no personal experience.

Personally, I had some experiences when I was very ill as a child, which I

believe to be as much " near death experiences " as anyone else has ever had -

I left my body, and have very clear memories of what occurred when I was in

that state, but even I don't claim to " know " what happens after death!

> You can't know for certain that you have hands at the end of

> your arms. Or even that you have arms. You can't know for certain that the

> sun will rise tomorrow, or that it rose yesterday, or even that that big

> yellow thing actually exists at all. Nothing can be known for certain.

And -

> if you will forgive me a paradox - anyone who claims certain knowledge is

> certainly at risk of error.

As someone once said... the only true knowledge is the realisation that we

know nothing!

BB

Peter

March 19, 2004

Hi,

For me, my veganism is based on the fact that since I can survive without

animal products, I do so. However, I would have no qualms about eating a

rabbit if it were the rabbit or me.

Why?

Because I tend to take the view that each person makes a decision - most

people unconsciously - of to what extent they are willing to put themselves

out to ease the suffering of others. Some will do nothing at all, though not

that many. Most would give a pound to a collecting box but that's about it,

others will spend their weekends on demos, a few will dedicate their lives

to others. My 'extent', then, is that I will spend time on demos, etc., but

not to the extent that I have no spare time for myself. And I will not use

animal products, but not to the extent of harming myself in the process.

I don't think I've put that as well as I'd have liked, so if it didn't make

sense, I'll try again when I go back online after the weekend!

Cheers,

John

-

" David Brown " <quickformgreen

Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:19 PM

Re: Judging Meat eaters...

> I would say that every " civilised " human, could use some

> enlightenment on one issue or another (myself included and then

> some). And in a " civilised " society respect of opinion is more often

> a matter of numbers, not fundumental truths (if such a thing even

> exists). If the majority of a " civilised " society believed that

> human sacrifice and canibalism was acceptable behavior then it was

> exceptable behavior. The question is why was it considered

> exceptable behavior. Was there an underlying matiral need for

> dietary supplument, or was it purely social?

>

> If you were trapped in a box with a rabbit and told that only one of

> you could come out alive; would you kill the rabbit or would you

> starve yourself to death for the sake of the rabbit. Mind you the

> rabbit would starve to death long before you did, so would you commit

> yourself to watching the rabbit die slowly or end its life mercifully?

>

> Would you, if all you had to eat were rabbits (hypotetical desert

> isle where rabbits were miraculously sustained by the air but you

> weren't), sustain yourself with their flesh? Or would you starve

> yourself for thier sake.

>

> , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...>

> wrote:

> >

> > The point I was making was referring to a point some one else was

> making

> > about peoples opinions and their right to have them. If a meat

> eater who

> > should be enlightened enough to know how cruel and wrong meat

> eating is and

> > doesn't get it....or is of a non-caring attitude towards

> it...should their

> > opinions be respected? Should they be allowed to be called part of

> the

> > civilized human race?

> >

> > I was refering to the psyco-paths that kill people for kicks....and

> not

> > those that work in slaughter-houses and butchers etc. As a psyco-

> path's

> > opinion might be that it is his/her right to kill people if they

> please.

> > Should that opinion be respected?

> >

> > Simon

> >

> > > So what you're saying is that wolves are psyco-paths? Or are you

> > > saying that huamns aren't animals? And therefore not subject to

> the

> > > same laws of nature that wolves and sheep are? By sheep I'm

> refering

> > > to the non-manipulated species, which actually seldom come in

> contact

> > > with wolves making the the wolf vs. sheep problem, almost entirly

> a

> > > result of human meddling. Non-the-less, wolve eat meat,

> regardless

> > > of the sourse animal.

> > >

> > > David

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Yeah In my opinion accepting meat-eating is almost like

> accepting a

> > > > phycho-path's opinion..that killing people is ok.

> > > >

> > > > Simon

> > >

> > > To send an email to -

>

> > >

March 19, 2004

I think right and wrong are objective realities not subjective..much like a

tree is a tree regardless of opinion.

I would say a wolf was commiting a savage act in chasing down a creature

ripping it apart and eating it yes. It might not know any better...but that

doesn't really lessen the act.

S

-

" David Brown " <quickformgreen

Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:48 PM

Re: Judging Meat eaters...

> So right and wrong are a matter of personal oppinion then? Are

> wolves savages?

>

> , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...>

> wrote:

> > It's knowing the difference between opinion and judgement ...judge

> the deed

> > not the doer.....the sin not the sinner. My opinion is that eating

> meat is a

> > savage thing to do, so I could say that a person who eats meat was a

> > savage..like someone who drives a bus is a bus driver.

> >

> > Simon

> > -

> > " David Brown " <quickformgreen>

> >

> > Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:45 PM

> > Re: Judging Meat eaters...

> >

> > > John,

> > >

> > > Define, right. Define, wrong. Define, truth. In my

> understanding

> > > they are all social construct. Before slavery was

> > > considered " wrong " , it was considered " right " . In fact non-human

> > > nature has significant examples of slavery, except we don't call

> it

> > > that we call it symbiosis when the arrangement is relatively two

> way

> > > or parasitism if it's relatively one-sided.

> > >

> > > The truth... That's even harder because it seems to me to be

> pinned

> > > superficially to the notion of " right " , which is itself in

> question.

> > >

> > > Non-human omnivores, like non-vegan humans, think carnivory is

> > > perfectly expectable. And it is if you're severely short-

> sighted. I

> > > wouldn't consider a predominantly carnivorous omnivore like a

> wolf to

> > > be " wrong " , for wolves there is no wrong or right, there is

> > > sustainment by any means available or death. Humans are no less

> > > subject to this imperative than wolves, luckily for use we can

> > > subsist on a completely herbivorous diet. It is no less " right "

> > > morally for omnivorous humans to consume meat than it is for

> > > herbivorous humans not to. We have to broaden our scope of

> > > understanding and our range of argument. I cringe at the thought

> of

> > > an animal suffering for my benefit. But I can watch a wild dog

> > > disembowel a still kick wildebeest in perfect comfort.

> > >

> > > Ultimately, I wouldn't want to see the whole of humanity go

> > > omnivorous. In fact, I think, specializing would be a detriment

> to

> > > the survival of our species. The reason we've been so successful

> to

> > > date is because of our penitent for generality. The generalists

> are

> > > the most likely to survive extinction level circumstances, on an

> > > individual species bases. Conversely the predators are the first

> to

> > > start dropping. But! This is primarily because their food stock

> > > populations (herbivores) plummet, because Their food stock

> > > populations ( " photovores " ) plummet. If humans as a species were

> to

> > > limit themselves exclusively to the consumption of plants to the

> > > point of loosing the capability to consume flesh we would be in

> > > direct completion with the second largest consumption group on the

> > > planet, which is very bad odds.

> > >

> > > The reason I choose to be a " virtual " herbivore is because, 1)

> Plants

> > > are an optimal source of nutrition. Meaning I get everything I

> need

> > > with relatively little of what I don't. 2) The food-animal

> industry

> > > is sloppy and at least 10 times less efficient than the plant food

> > > industry (which has serious issues of its own). 3) The in

> > > efficiencies in the food animal industry have long-term

> environmental

> > > ramifications, we've only just begun to understand and when we do

> it

> > > will be too late. 4) The only way to end an inherently violent

> > > practice is through non-violent non-compliance... veganism... a

> > > boycott of the food-animal industry. A shift, and in some cases a

> > > reduction of the economies and technologies to levels that are

> > > sustainable until the sun boils the atmosphere and the oceans off

> and

> > > glazes the ground we walk on. Hopefully by then we will have

> found a

> > > new ball of clay to exist on.

> > >

> > > IMHO,

> > > David

> > >

> > > , " John Davis " <mcxg46@d...>

> wrote:

> > > > But said most powerful religious order on earth does not

> consider

> > > meat

> > > > eating hellish. So if for the sake of this argument you accept

> the

> > > Catholic

> > > > church's word that hell exists, it would be illogical not to

> also

> > > accept

> > > > their word that meat eating is not hellish, meaning that hell

> would

> > > not have

> > > > a special place for them...

> > > >

> > > > And, of course, since power and the tendency to tell the truth

> do

> > > not

> > > > generally go hand in hand, and indeed, might almost be said to

> be

> > > inversely

> > > > proportional to one another, one might even consider that if the

> > > Catholic

> > > > church says something is true, the fact that it is powerful

> makes

> > > it less

> > > > likely to be so!

> > > >

> > > > Far better to work towards making meat-eating socially

> unacceptable

> > > or even

> > > > illegal, and create for them all a hell on this earth!

> > > >

> > > > On a more serious note, I think we all judge meat eaters all the

> > > time, and,

> > > > if we believe meat eating to be wrong, we are right to do so.

> If it

> > > angers

> > > > me when meat eaters think they should have a right to eat meat

> (but

> > > not,

> > > > hypocritically, that we should all have a right to murder and

> > > enslave

> > > > whoever we like), it really angers me when vegans actually

> condone

> > > this

> > > > view. If eating meat is wrong, the same way keeping slaves or

> > > murdering

> > > > someone is wrong, then no one should have the right to do so.

> Only

> > > if

> > > > veganism is a belief on the par with, say, belief that oranges

> > > taste better

> > > > than bananas, or that pop music today is not as good as it used

> to

> > > be - in

> > > > other words a matter of opinion - should people have a right to

> eat

> > > meat or

> > > > not. But I doubt many on this list consider the veganism a

> matter

> > > of opinion

> > > > on this level - most, I think, consider it a matter of the right

> > > thing to to

> > > > do morally.

> > > >

> > > > John

> > > >

> > > > John

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...>

> > > >

> > > > Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:43 AM

> > > > Re: Judging Meat eaters...

> > > >

> > > > > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death,

> > > whatever

> > > > our

> > > > > beliefs.

> > > > > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most

> powerful

> > > > > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a

> hell

> > > > existing,

> > > > > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such

> > > not bad

> > > > > belief.>

> > > > >

> > > > > Simon

> > > > >

> > > > > > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Jo

> > > > > > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we

> shouldn't do

> > > > > > > everything we can to educate people and stop the

> torturing,

> > > but I

> > > > > > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is

> > > going to

> > > > > > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to

> what

> > > we have

> > > > > > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your

> > > message to

> > > > > > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it

> offends me

> > > as a

> > > > > > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much

> of a

> > > turn off

> > > > > > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > To send an email to -

> > >

> > > > > >

March 19, 2004