Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 >Would it be possible to achieve converts to vegetarianism in significant numbers by giving out CDs of something along the lines of whatever it was that Tony Robbins showed at that meeting? If so, what would the best film be? Would the average non-vegetarian take the time to watch " Earthlings " ? Would " Food, Inc. " be more effective in this capacity? Or would it be something else? No, not Food Inc. This film, while very good, is not promoting vegetarianism as such, just contrasting wholesome food of any kind, sustainably produced, and the junk that most people call food now. As I said before, we see in this movie chicken throats cut, organic no less, and the guy doing it is visibly disturbed by the suffering, poor chap, but he has to do it, right, in the name of natural meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 i'd say misleading a potential vegan with a documentary that spins the situation toward a "happy meat" direction is in itself counterproductive to helping the animals. Food, inc. sounds very much like that sort of thing. a worthy documentary ought to have an honest message to the viewer, and a vegan one. after all, buying animal products of any kind is paying someone else to hurt and kill the animals. i feel that Earthlings takes the "honest message" approach in a very, very well-written naration, with an easy to follow organization, such as found in the sectioning-off of each component of veganism, i.e. food, clothing, "research", and "entertainment." i would not say that someone who watches Food, Inc. might not consider, on their own as it seems it would be the case here, going vegan...at least...perhaps eventually.... but i say keep the message "go vegan!" clear, and let them work out the details. telling them "do what you 'can', " gives them too much sympathy for their situation, and not enough for the animals. any excuse they can get, as nonvegans, is a good one to stay nonvegan. this point should be abundantly transparent to any vegan who has had experience listening to the countless rationalizations nonvegans tend to have...for not being vegan already. plus, as a vegan talking with another person who is not vegan, i feel it is important to not insult them on where they are coming from, or what they are capable of (in terms of change), by referring them to a documentary that sugar-coats the message...at best. Earthlings is, no doubt, a difficult documentary to watch...but it talks to the viewer as though they are already intelligent, compassionate people...capable of understanding the situation when it is presented to them honestly...and capable of making the necessary changes in accordance to this new information. i find any other approach to spreading veganism intrinsicly condenscending, by the mere fact that whoever is approaching a nonvegan this way...is approaching them as though he/she is a person not capable of making the switch to being vegan. don't sell yourself short, but...don't sell other people short, either. you know? ~will Mark Galeck <mark_galeckveggiereeltor <dan; Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:59:11 PMRE: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. >Would it be possible to achieve converts to vegetarianism in significantnumbers by giving out CDs of something along the lines of whatever it wasthat Tony Robbins showed at that meeting?If so, what would the best film be? Would the average non-vegetarian takethe time to watch "Earthlings" ? Would "Food, Inc." be more effective in thiscapacity? Or would it be something else?No, not Food Inc. This film, while very good, is not promotingvegetarianism as such, just contrasting wholesome food of any kind,sustainably produced, and the junk that most people call food now. As Isaid before, we see in this movie chicken throats cut, organic no less, andthe guy doing it is visibly disturbed by the suffering, poor chap, but hehas to do it, right, in the name of natural meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 i'd say misleading a potential vegan with a documentary that spins the situation toward a " happy meat " direction is in itself counterproductive to helping the animals. Food, inc. sounds very much like that sort of thing. a worthy documentary ought to have an honest message to the viewer, and a vegan one. after all, buying animal products of any kind is paying someone else to hurt and kill the animals. i feel that Earthlings takes the " honest message " approach in a very, very well-written naration, with an easy to follow organization, such as found in the sectioning-off of each component of veganism, i.e. food, clothing, " research " , and " entertainment. " i would not say that someone who watches Food, Inc. might not consider, on their own as it seems it would be the case here, going vegan...at least...perhaps eventually.... but i say keep the message " go vegan! " clear, and letthem work out the details. telling them " do what you 'can', " gives them too much sympathy for their situation, and not enough for the animals. any excuse they can get, as nonvegans, is a good one to stay nonvegan. this point should be abundantly transparent to any vegan who has had experience listening to the countless rationalizations nonvegans tend to have...for not being vegan already. plus, as a vegan talking with another person who is not vegan, i feel it is important to not insult them on where they are coming from, or what they are capable of (in terms of change), by referring them to a documentary that sugar-coats the message...at best. Earthlings is, no doubt, a difficult documentary to watch...but it talks to the viewer as though they are already intelligent, compassionate people...capable of understanding the situation when it is presented to them honestly...and capable of making the necessary changes in accordance to this new information. i find any other approach to spreading veganism intrinsicly condenscending, by the mere fact that whoever is approaching a nonvegan this way...is approaching them as though he/she is a person not capable of making the switch to being vegan. don't sell yourself short, but...don't sell other people short, either. you know? ~will ________________________________ Mark Galeck <mark_galeck veggiereeltor <dan; Friday, July 10, 2009 10:59:11 PM RE: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. >Would it be possible to achieve converts to vegetarianism in significant numbers by giving out CDs of something along the lines of whatever it was that Tony Robbins showed at that meeting? If so, what would the best film be? Would the average non-vegetarian take the time to watch " Earthlings " ? Would " Food, Inc. " be more effective in this capacity? Or would it be something else? No, not Food Inc. This film, while very good, is not promoting vegetarianism as such, just contrasting wholesome food of any kind, sustainably produced, and the junk that most people call food now. As I said before, we see in this movie chicken throats cut, organic no less, and the guy doing it is visibly disturbed by the suffering, poor chap, but he has to do it, right, in the name of natural meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Why not checkout the movie yourself? Perfect, as they say, should not be the enemy of Good. I think this is a mistake a lot of people on the veg*an side of the debate make. We are, after all, talking about something *basic* like food. 95% of the people in this country are non-vegans (and probably the number is even higher). They consume meat/dairy products 3 times a day (and numerous snacks in between). To them, it's a matter of survival (the only thing more basic than food is water). This is the first time in their entire _family tree_, going back 1000s of generations, that they're being asked to change something as basic. It takes time. It'll take generations to make the change. Nobody's going to watch a movie and then run home to empty the fridge of all meat products. This movie makes people think. Yes, some people will choose the " happy meat " options for their meat. Some will ignore the message. But many will think; and will try out a meat-free options. People are not stupid. We should get rid of this holier-than-thou mode of thinking. Ajay On 07/11/2009 09:54 PM, William Beazley wrote: > > i'd say misleading a potential vegan with a documentary that spins the > situation toward a " happy meat " direction > is in itself counterproductive to helping the animals. Food, > inc. sounds very much like that sort of thing. > > a worthy documentary ought to have an /honest message/ to the viewer, > and a vegan one. after all, buying animal products > of /any/ kind is paying someone else to hurt and kill the animals. > . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 the reason i am reluctant to see Food, Inc. is because those who have seen it have already mentioned that it steers people to the "free range" cattle direction...as Gina's friend seems to have thought as well. I'd rather not financially support those behind that message. so that's why i don't plan on checking it out myself until i can do so without supporting them. i feel i need to quote my previous email to reply to your statement where you said: " People are not stupid. We should get rid of this holier-than- thoumode of thinking." the main theme of my email you responded to was along the lines of what i said here, for example: "i find any other approach to spreading veganism intrinsicly condenscending, by the mere fact that whoever is approaching a nonvegan this way...is approaching them as though he/she is a person not capable of making the switch to being vegan." if i might be more clear, i mean to say that pointing a nonvegan toward a documentary, etc that promotes anything other than veganism, is to assume they would not be the type of people we are (as vegans), who COULD make the change as we already have. so...who is taking on the "holier-than-thou" perspective of nonvegans here? ~will Ajay S <ajaybootsWilliam Beazley <wbeazleyiiiCc: Mark Galeck <mark_galeck; BAV mail list ; Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:42:29 AMRe: Re: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. Why not checkout the movie yourself?Perfect, as they say, should not be the enemy of Good.I think this is a mistake a lot of people on the veg*anside of the debate make.We are, after all, talking about something *basic* like food.95% of the people in this country are non-vegans (and probablythe number is even higher). They consume meat/dairy products3 times a day (and numerous snacks in between). To them,it's a matter of survival (the only thing more basic than food is water).This is the first time in their entire _family tree_, going back 1000s ofgenerations, that they're being asked to change something as basic.It takes time. It'll take generations to make the change.Nobody's going to watch a movie and then run home to empty the fridgeof all meat products. This movie makes people think. Yes, some peoplewill choose the "happy meat" options for their meat. Some willignore the message. But many will think; and will try out a meat-freeoptions.People are not stupid. We should get rid of this holier-than- thoumode of thinking.AjayOn 07/11/2009 09:54 PM, William Beazley wrote:> > i'd say misleading a potential vegan with a documentary that spins the > situation toward a "happy meat" direction> is in itself counterproductive to helping the animals. Food, > inc. sounds very much like that sort of thing. > > a worthy documentary ought to have an /honest message/ to the viewer, > and a vegan one. after all, buying animal products> of /any/ kind is paying someone else to hurt and kill the animals. > . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Personally, I generally support anything that leads people to be more aware of the impact of their food choices, even if those people make choices that are different from my own. If several people switch from factory-farmed beef to free-range organic meat products, I think that is just as significant as one person becoming vegan. Also, " Food, Inc. " includes some fairly graphic slaughter scenes from the free-range farm which could influence some people to become vegetarian, even if they have access to free-range meats. Brett - William Beazley Ajay S Cc: Mark Galeck ; BAV mail list ; Monday, July 13, 2009 5:33 PM Re: Re: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. the reason i am reluctant to see Food, Inc. is because those who have seen it have already mentioned that it steers people to the " free range " cattle direction...as Gina's friend seems to have thought as well. I'd rather not financially support those behind that message. so that's why i don't plan on checking it out myself until i can do so without supporting them. i feel i need to quote my previous email to reply to your statement where you said: " People are not stupid. We should get rid of this holier-than- thou mode of thinking. " the main theme of my email you responded to was along the lines of what i said here, for example: " i find any other approach to spreading veganism intrinsicly condenscending, by the mere fact that whoever is approaching a nonvegan this way...is approaching them as though he/she is a person not capable of making the switch to being vegan. " if i might be more clear, i mean to say that pointing a nonvegan toward a documentary, etc that promotes anything other than veganism, is to assume they would not be the type of people we are (as vegans), who COULD make the change as we already have. so...who is taking on the " holier-than-thou " perspective of nonvegans here? ~will ________________________________ Ajay S <ajayboots William Beazley <wbeazleyiii Cc: Mark Galeck <mark_galeck; BAV mail list ; Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:42:29 AM Re: Re: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. Why not checkout the movie yourself? Perfect, as they say, should not be the enemy of Good. I think this is a mistake a lot of people on the veg*an side of the debate make. We are, after all, talking about something *basic* like food. 95% of the people in this country are non-vegans (and probably the number is even higher). They consume meat/dairy products 3 times a day (and numerous snacks in between). To them, it's a matter of survival (the only thing more basic than food is water). This is the first time in their entire _family tree_, going back 1000s of generations, that they're being asked to change something as basic. It takes time. It'll take generations to make the change. Nobody's going to watch a movie and then run home to empty the fridge of all meat products. This movie makes people think. Yes, some people will choose the " happy meat " options for their meat. Some will ignore the message. But many will think; and will try out a meat-free options. People are not stupid. We should get rid of this holier-than- thou mode of thinking. Ajay On 07/11/2009 09:54 PM, William Beazley wrote: > > i'd say misleading a potential vegan with a documentary that spins the > situation toward a " happy meat " direction > is in itself counterproductive to helping the animals. Food, > inc. sounds very much like that sort of thing. > > a worthy documentary ought to have an /honest message/ to the viewer, > and a vegan one. after all, buying animal products > of /any/ kind is paying someone else to hurt and kill the animals. > . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 >Also, " Food, Inc. " includes some fairly graphic slaughter scenes from the free-range farm which could influence some people to become vegetarian, even if they have access to free-range meats. Yes this one somewhat add to me when I saw it - it's like, this organic farmer saying " hey you organic chicken, I love you so much, let me push you down this tube so you are immobilized and I can cut your organic throat, right here! Ouch, this has got to hurt, I am really sorry chicken, my heart is sinking, but I have to eat something, please understand. " Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 a thought to share along these lines: is it really the same for several people to be still eating meat, only now more guiltlessly, and therefore less likely to stop? as for one person to never pay anyone to torture or kill another animal again as a vegan for life? ~will ________________________________ Brett <brett Ajay S <ajayboots; William Beazley <wbeazleyiii Cc: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:19:27 PM Re: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. Personally, I generally support anything that leads people to be more aware of the impact of their food choices, even if those people make choices that are different from my own. If several people switch from factory-farmed beef to free-range organic meat products, I think that is just as significant as one person becoming vegan. Also, " Food, Inc. " includes some fairly graphic slaughter scenes from the free-range farm which could influence some people to become vegetarian, even if they have access to free-range meats. Brett - >William Beazley >Ajay S >Cc: Mark Galeck ; BAV mail list ; >Monday, July 13, 2009 5:33 PM >Re: Re: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. > > > > > >the reason i am reluctant to see Food, Inc. is because those who have seen it have already mentioned that it steers people to the " free range " cattle direction... as Gina's friend seems to have thought as well. I'd rather not financially support those behind that message. so that's why i don't plan on checking it out myself until i can do so without supporting them. > >i feel i need to quote my previous email to reply to your statement where you said: " People are not stupid. We should get rid of this holier-than- thou >mode of thinking. " > >the main theme of my email you responded to was along the lines of what i said here, for example: " i find any other approach to spreading veganism intrinsicly condenscending, by the mere fact that whoever is approaching a nonvegan this way...is approaching them as though he/she is a person not capable of making the switch to being vegan. " > >if i might be more clear, i mean to say that pointing a nonvegan toward a documentary, etc that promotes anything other than veganism, is to assume they would not be the type of people we are (as vegans), who COULD make the change as we already have. > >so...who is taking on the " holier-than- thou " perspective of nonvegans here? > >~will > >____________ _________ _________ __ >Ajay S <ajayboots > >William Beazley <wbeazleyiii@ > >Cc: Mark Galeck <mark_galeck@ pacbell.net>; BAV mail list <@ ..com>; >Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:42:29 AM >Re: Re: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. > >Why not checkout the movie yourself? > >Perfect, as they say, should not be the enemy of Good. >I think this is a mistake a lot of people on the veg*an >side of the debate make. > >We are, after all, talking about something *basic* like food. > >95% of the people in this country are non-vegans (and probably >the number is even higher). They consume meat/dairy products >3 times a day (and numerous snacks in between). To them, >it's a matter of survival (the only thing more basic than food is water). >This is the first time in their entire _family tree_, going back 1000s of >generations, that they're being asked to change something as basic. > >It takes time. It'll take generations to make the change. > >Nobody's going to watch a movie and then run home to empty the fridge >of all meat products. This movie makes people think. Yes, some people >will choose the " happy meat " options for their meat. Some will >ignore the message. But many will think; and will try out a meat-free >options. > >People are not stupid. We should get rid of this holier-than- thou >mode of thinking. > >Ajay > >On 07/11/2009 09:54 PM, William Beazley wrote: >> >> i'd say misleading a potential vegan with a documentary that spins the >> situation toward a " happy meat " direction >> is in itself counterproductive to helping the animals. Food, >> inc. sounds very much like that sort of thing. >> >> a worthy documentary ought to have an /honest message/ to the viewer, >> and a vegan one. after all, buying animal products >> of /any/ kind is paying someone else to hurt and kill the animals. >> . . . . . > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 amen. is it really possible to kill anyone nicely? human or nonhuman animal, i'd say the amount of absurdity in the idea of it ought to be so obvious as to bring anything aside from completely abstaining from animal products into question... ....but maybe that's just several of us who perceive the ridiculousness of killing someone nicely? ~will ________________________________ Mark Galeck <mark_galeck Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:25:09 PM RE: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. >Also, " Food, Inc. " includes some fairly graphic slaughter scenes from the free-range farm which could influence some people to become vegetarian, even if they have access to free-range meats. Yes this one somewhat add to me when I saw it - it's like, this organic farmer saying " hey you organic chicken, I love you so much, let me push you down this tube so you are immobilized and I can cut your organic throat, right here! Ouch, this has got to hurt, I am really sorry chicken, my heart is sinking, but I have to eat something, please understand. " Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Ajay, I like your comment about Perfect not being the enemy of Good. I think " Food Inc " is probably GOOD for people who are only vaguely aware that something might be amiss in their Food Fantasy Land. If they are totally in the dark, it will shine a light into their minds. But for folks like the people who read this list, I think Food Inc the movie would not exactly be GOOD. It would be like a student who turns in only half of his homework and 30% of what he did turn in was not germane to the homework questions you asked him to research and answer. You wouldn't give him a good grade for that. But if you were the child's parent, who had no idea what the original assignment was and who was unfamiliar with the subject area that the child was researching, you might see the (apparently completed) homework assignment, read it, study it, and learn some things about the subject matter. For the parent, the homework turned in would be GOOD, maybe even FANTASTIC! And really interesting! For the teacher, the homework would have some redeeming qualities but would generally be unsatisfactory. So I guess what I'm saying is: this movie being GOOD or NOT depends on who is going to see it. I agree with Ajay, this movie probably SHOULD be recommended for people who are new to these concepts or who are resistant to getting the information through other avenues. While it is an imperfect light, at least it will illuminate SOMETHING. By contrast, if you're someone who has already educated yourself about these topics, there's no need to see this movie; it's like shining a rather dim and disappointing flashlight on a sunny pasture; what's the point? In my case, I accompanied my boyfriend who is not vegetarian and does not like to read books or literature on veg/AR topics (no matter how prominently I place them in his view *wink*)... so you'll be surprised to find out that going to see Food Inc was actually HIS idea (I think he had read some review in sfgate or salon or something). Even though the movie was only so-so for me, I think it was GOOD for him. It DID make him think, and I'm glad he got to see it. -Rachel D. , Ajay S <ajayboots wrote: > > Why not checkout the movie yourself? > > Perfect, as they say, should not be the enemy of Good. > I think this is a mistake a lot of people on the veg*an > side of the debate make. > > We are, after all, talking about something *basic* like food. > > 95% of the people in this country are non-vegans (and probably > the number is even higher). They consume meat/dairy products > 3 times a day (and numerous snacks in between). To them, > it's a matter of survival (the only thing more basic than food is water). > This is the first time in their entire _family tree_, going back 1000s of > generations, that they're being asked to change something as basic. > > It takes time. It'll take generations to make the change. > > Nobody's going to watch a movie and then run home to empty the fridge > of all meat products. This movie makes people think. Yes, some people > will choose the " happy meat " options for their meat. Some will > ignore the message. But many will think; and will try out a meat-free > options. > > People are not stupid. We should get rid of this holier-than-thou > mode of thinking. > > Ajay > > On 07/11/2009 09:54 PM, William Beazley wrote: > > > > i'd say misleading a potential vegan with a documentary that spins the > > situation toward a " happy meat " direction > > is in itself counterproductive to helping the animals. Food, > > inc. sounds very much like that sort of thing. > > > > a worthy documentary ought to have an /honest message/ to the viewer, > > and a vegan one. after all, buying animal products > > of /any/ kind is paying someone else to hurt and kill the animals. > > . . . . . > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Rachel, I lived for 15 years in a part of the country where the nearest vegetarian restaurant was a 95 mile drive and in another country. (Buffalo, NY; the veggie restaurant was Cafe Aquarius in Guelph, Ontario). My (then) girlfriend used to get harassed just because she had a couple of " veggie " stickers on her car. Once somebody left a huge bone on the roof of her car. People would shout stuff at her from other cars on the highway. My point is: there are a _lot_ of people out there for whom " meat " is something that comes in a package from the local grocery store. In fact, I'd say that vast majority of people in this country have no idea about the conditions in factory farms. To these people, " Food Inc. " will be an eye-opener; a total revelation. The movie is not targeted at us anyways; it'll be like preaching to the choir. Yes, we can find flaws in it. And it has flaws by the boatload. But ask the target audience, and you'd be surprised at how awed they'd be by the movie. Remember, these are the people who are totally blind to these issues. It just never occurs to them to wonder where the meat comes from. As for the movie not going far enough? Consider, for example, a person who has never walked in his life. Now one day he gets up and tries to take a stuttering step or two. Should we yell at him, saying " What? Is that the best you can do?? You are so pathetic!! Your effort is useless!! If you can't run like a gazelle, you might as well just sit your fat ass down and not bother!! " ?? Obviously not. Is this the last movie that will ever be made on the topic? No. Can there ever be a 2-hour movie which will cover every abuse we humans heap on the animals? It's impossible. I'm a glass-half-full kind of person. I think it's great that this movie was made; and supported it financially by watching it. I hope the movie makes lots of money. Why? Because then some other producer somewhere will look at the success of this movie and wonder: can I do a better job and make even more money? And a better movie (or two, or five) will be made. And people will get more educated. And slowly, progress of the type we want will be made. Ajay PS: Don't forget that the movie spends a lot of time talking about the evil Monsanto does. The movie is, after all, " Food Inc. " and not just " Meat Inc. " :-) On 07/16/2009 01:53 PM, Rachel Donovan wrote: > > > Ajay, I like your comment about Perfect not being the enemy of Good. > > I think " Food Inc " is probably GOOD for people who are only vaguely > aware that something might be amiss in their Food Fantasy Land. If they > are totally in the dark, it will shine a light into their minds. > > But for folks like the people who read this list, I think Food Inc the > movie would not exactly be GOOD. It would be like a student who turns in > only half of his homework and 30% of what he did turn in was not germane > to the homework questions you asked him to research and answer. You > wouldn't give him a good grade for that. > > But if you were the child's parent, who had no idea what the original > assignment was and who was unfamiliar with the subject area that the > child was researching, you might see the (apparently completed) homework > assignment, read it, study it, and learn some things about the subject > matter. > > For the parent, the homework turned in would be GOOD, maybe even > FANTASTIC! And really interesting! For the teacher, the homework would > have some redeeming qualities but would generally be unsatisfactory. > > So I guess what I'm saying is: this movie being GOOD or NOT depends on > who is going to see it. I agree with Ajay, this movie probably SHOULD be > recommended for people who are new to these concepts or who are > resistant to getting the information through other avenues. While it is > an imperfect light, at least it will illuminate SOMETHING. By contrast, > if you're someone who has already educated yourself about these topics, > there's no need to see this movie; it's like shining a rather dim and > disappointing flashlight on a sunny pasture; what's the point? > > In my case, I accompanied my boyfriend who is not vegetarian and does > not like to read books or literature on veg/AR topics (no matter how > prominently I place them in his view *wink*)... so you'll be surprised > to find out that going to see Food Inc was actually HIS idea (I think he > had read some review in sfgate or salon or something). Even though the > movie was only so-so for me, I think it was GOOD for him. It DID make > him think, and I'm glad he got to see it. > > -Rachel D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Dear Rachel and Ajay, I've really appreciated your comments on the movie and how good (ie: effective) it is... Even though the movie never directly advocates for a veg lifestyle - I've had 3 friends tell me after seeing the movie they have not bought meat and are considering becoming veg. Tim racheldonovanCC: From: ajaybootsDate: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:58:16 -0700Re: Re: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. Rachel,I lived for 15 years in a part of the country where thenearest vegetarian restaurant was a 95 mile drive andin another country.(Buffalo, NY; the veggie restaurant was Cafe Aquariusin Guelph, Ontario).My (then) girlfriend used to get harassed just becauseshe had a couple of "veggie" stickers on her car.Once somebody left a huge bone on the roof of her car.People would shout stuff at her from other cars on thehighway.My point is: there are a _lot_ of people out therefor whom "meat" is something that comes in a packagefrom the local grocery store. In fact, I'd say thatvast majority of people in this country have noidea about the conditions in factory farms.To these people, "Food Inc." will be an eye-opener; atotal revelation. The movie is not targeted at usanyways; it'll be like preaching to the choir.Yes, we can find flaws in it. And it has flaws by theboatload. But ask the target audience, and you'd besurprised at how awed they'd be by the movie. Remember,these are the people who are totally blind to theseissues. It just never occurs to them to wonder where the meatcomes from.As for the movie not going far enough?Consider, for example, a person who has neverwalked in his life. Now one day he gets up andtries to take a stuttering step or two.Should we yell at him, saying "What? Is thatthe best you can do?? You are so pathetic!! Your effortis useless!! If you can't run like a gazelle,you might as well just sit your fat ass down and notbother!!" ?? Obviously not.Is this the last movie that will ever be made on the topic?No.Can there ever be a 2-hour movie which will cover everyabuse we humans heap on the animals? It's impossible.I'm a glass-half-full kind of person. I think it's greatthat this movie was made; and supported it financiallyby watching it. I hope the movie makes lots of money.Why? Because then some other producer somewhere will look at thesuccess of this movie and wonder: can I do a better joband make even more money? And a better movie (or two, orfive) will be made. And people will get more educated.And slowly, progress of the type we want will be made.AjayPS: Don't forget that the movie spends a lot of timetalking about the evil Monsanto does. The movie is,after all, "Food Inc." and not just "Meat Inc." :-)On 07/16/2009 01:53 PM, Rachel Donovan wrote:> > > Ajay, I like your comment about Perfect not being the enemy of Good.> > I think "Food Inc" is probably GOOD for people who are only vaguely > aware that something might be amiss in their Food Fantasy Land. If they > are totally in the dark, it will shine a light into their minds.> > But for folks like the people who read this list, I think Food Inc the > movie would not exactly be GOOD. It would be like a student who turns in > only half of his homework and 30% of what he did turn in was not germane > to the homework questions you asked him to research and answer. You > wouldn't give him a good grade for that.> > But if you were the child's parent, who had no idea what the original > assignment was and who was unfamiliar with the subject area that the > child was researching, you might see the (apparently completed) homework > assignment, read it, study it, and learn some things about the subject > matter.> > For the parent, the homework turned in would be GOOD, maybe even > FANTASTIC! And really interesting! For the teacher, the homework would > have some redeeming qualities but would generally be unsatisfactory.> > So I guess what I'm saying is: this movie being GOOD or NOT depends on > who is going to see it. I agree with Ajay, this movie probably SHOULD be > recommended for people who are new to these concepts or who are > resistant to getting the information through other avenues. While it is > an imperfect light, at least it will illuminate SOMETHING. By contrast, > if you're someone who has already educated yourself about these topics, > there's no need to see this movie; it's like shining a rather dim and > disappointing flashlight on a sunny pasture; what's the point?> > In my case, I accompanied my boyfriend who is not vegetarian and does > not like to read books or literature on veg/AR topics (no matter how > prominently I place them in his view *wink*)... so you'll be surprised > to find out that going to see Food Inc was actually HIS idea (I think he > had read some review in sfgate or salon or something). Even though the > movie was only so-so for me, I think it was GOOD for him. It DID make > him think, and I'm glad he got to see it.> > -Rachel D. Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 i'd like to clarify my position on my perspective on films like Food, Inc. i'd say it is pretty clear that there are many people who's interests -- financial, etc. -- would benefit from pointing others to nonvegan alternatives to the horrors of factory farming. for example, those who wish to make a profit selling dairy products will benefit from "happy cow" commercials. there will be plenty of propaganda for these various nonvegan products. there will also be plenty of people willing to watch it. what they do with that information from there...can obviously vary from person to person. that said, however, i'd also say that us ethical vegans...hoping to help others go vegan...would best do so by pointing others to information sources (movies, pamphlets, websites, etc.) with a transparently vegan message, i.e. "go vegan." why should we as ethical vegans be watering down our true message? why not let those whose message actually differs from ours do that? ...cuz they will. ~will Tim Woodward <trwoodwardajayboots; racheldonovanCc: Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 6:41:39 PMRE: Re: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. Dear Rachel and Ajay, I've really appreciated your comments on the movie and how good (ie: effective) it is... Even though the movie never directly advocates for a veg lifestyle - I've had 3 friends tell me after seeing the movie they have not bought meat and are considering becoming veg. Tim racheldonovan@ sbcglobal. netCC: @ .comajayboots Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:58:16 -0700Re: Re: [southBayVeggies] Earthlings vs. Food, Inc. Rachel,I lived for 15 years in a part of the country where thenearest vegetarian restaurant was a 95 mile drive andin another country.(Buffalo, NY; the veggie restaurant was Cafe Aquariusin Guelph, Ontario).My (then) girlfriend used to get harassed just becauseshe had a couple of "veggie" stickers on her car.Once somebody left a huge bone on the roof of her car.People would shout stuff at her from other cars on thehighway.My point is: there are a _lot_ of people out therefor whom "meat" is something that comes in a packagefrom the local grocery store. In fact, I'd say thatvast majority of people in this country have noidea about the conditions in factory farms.To these people, "Food Inc." will be an eye-opener; atotal revelation. The movie is not targeted at usanyways; it'll be like preaching to the choir.Yes, we can find flaws in it. And it has flaws by theboatload. But ask the target audience, and you'd besurprised at how awed they'd be by the movie. Remember,these are the people who are totally blind to theseissues. It just never occurs to them to wonder where the meatcomes from.As for the movie not going far enough?Consider, for example, a person who has neverwalked in his life. Now one day he gets up andtries to take a stuttering step or two.Should we yell at him, saying "What? Is thatthe best you can do?? You are so pathetic!! Your effortis useless!! If you can't run like a gazelle,you might as well just sit your fat ass down and notbother!!" ?? Obviously not.Is this the last movie that will ever be made on the topic?No.Can there ever be a 2-hour movie which will cover everyabuse we humans heap on the animals? It's impossible.I'm a glass-half-full kind of person. I think it's greatthat this movie was made; and supported it financiallyby watching it. I hope the movie makes lots of money.Why? Because then some other producer somewhere will look at thesuccess of this movie and wonder: can I do a better joband make even more money? And a better movie (or two, orfive) will be made. And people will get more educated.And slowly, progress of the type we want will be made.AjayPS: Don't forget that the movie spends a lot of timetalking about the evil Monsanto does. The movie is,after all, "Food Inc." and not just "Meat Inc." :-)On 07/16/2009 01:53 PM, Rachel Donovan wrote:> > > Ajay, I like your comment about Perfect not being the enemy of Good.> > I think "Food Inc" is probably GOOD for people who are only vaguely > aware that something might be amiss in their Food Fantasy Land. If they > are totally in the dark, it will shine a light into their minds.> > But for folks like the people who read this list, I think Food Inc the > movie would not exactly be GOOD. It would be like a student who turns in > only half of his homework and 30% of what he did turn in was not germane > to the homework questions you asked him to research and answer. You > wouldn't give him a good grade for that.> > But if you were the child's parent, who had no idea what the original > assignment was and who was unfamiliar with the subject area that the > child was researching, you might see the (apparently completed) homework > assignment, read it, study it, and learn some things about the subject > matter.> > For the parent, the homework turned in would be GOOD, maybe even > FANTASTIC! And really interesting! For the teacher, the homework would > have some redeeming qualities but would generally be unsatisfactory.> > So I guess what I'm saying is: this movie being GOOD or NOT depends on > who is going to see it. I agree with Ajay, this movie probably SHOULD be > recommended for people who are new to these concepts or who are > resistant to getting the information through other avenues. While it is > an imperfect light, at least it will illuminate SOMETHING. By contrast, > if you're someone who has already educated yourself about these topics, > there's no need to see this movie; it's like shining a rather dim and > disappointing flashlight on a sunny pasture; what's the point?> > In my case, I accompanied my boyfriend who is not vegetarian and does > not like to read books or literature on veg/AR topics (no matter how > prominently I place them in his view *wink*)... so you'll be surprised > to find out that going to see Food Inc was actually HIS idea (I think he > had read some review in sfgate or salon or something). Even though the > movie was only so-so for me, I think it was GOOD for him. It DID make > him think, and I'm glad he got to see it.> > -Rachel D. Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you. 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.