Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger
From: cgeiger@ut-ngp.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.veg
Subject: Re: meat vs nomeat
Message-ID: <2856@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Jan-86 11:16:17 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.2856
Posted: Fri Jan 24 11:16:17 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jan-86 04:09:07 EST
References: <492@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 32



>>	Not to continue the argument, but hopefully to end it --

>>	It is exactly like the abortion issue - There are *NO*
>>facts that could *ever* come to light that would settle the 
>>issue.

>>	Both sides are simply rationalizing an aesthetic position.
>>And, as has been said, there is no accounting for taste.

>>	So, give it a rest, folks.


I really disagree!  Like other people have said recently, there are
*ethical,* not just moral, questions involved in the way people get
their meat in this society.  The whole system of having an industry,
in which animals are treated as a commodity, a product, bring meat
to people's tables is fucked!  This really has nothing to do with
people's "aesthetic position"s regarding their preference concerning
eating meat.

Damn, I really wish I had been brought up where I had to kill my food
myself.  Then I *would* have been confronted with a personal, moral,
or, if you will, an aesthetic dilemma.  But don't kid yourself into
thinking we have one now.

By the way, I think this *does* belong in this newsgroup.  So there.


Charles S. Geiger
U. of Texas