Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!spp
From: spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope)
Newsgroups: net.veg
Subject: Re: Let's Keep This Discussion Going
Message-ID: <11741@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 17:38:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11741
Posted: Fri Feb  7 17:38:57 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 04:21:30 EST
References: <903@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 72

Thanks for your comments on my posting, Gita.  I'll try 
to explain my point of view a little better.
>  
>  
> >>>First my own views: I consider it ethical for man to 
> consume meat.  I object to the conditions under which livestock
> and poultry are kept in this country.  (Were my objections
> somewhat stronger, I might well be a vegetarian for that 
> reason.)
> 
> You either have principles or you don't.  You can't be only half-pregnant, 
> you know...  
> 

Here we have a basic philosoplical difference.  I don't view 
everything as being either "right" or "wrong" with no in-between.
All I'm saying is I acknowledge that animals raised for food are
not being properly treated in a lot of cases.  This would tend to
influence me towards not eating meat.  But I'm still a meat eater 
because I have other reasons.  This may be a little wishy-washy
I realize.

> I think you'd better cite someone other than G.B.Shaw, as he was most
> outspoken in his vegetarian beliefs, and never hesitated to say what he felt 
> was right.  In fact, I'm quite certain than he managed to offend quite a few 
> non-vegetarians in his day.  There's the story of Mr. Shaw's remarks made at 
> a dinner, during which he loudly announced that at least he knew what his 
> food had "died" from, and that what he was eating did not run away from the 
> person trying to kill it.
>  
No doubt Shaw was outspoken.  But he served meat to his non-vegetarian
dinner guests.  I don't expect every ethical vegetarian to be
this open minded.  
    Even if English vegetarians feel just as superior as some
American ones do that's no excuse.

> >>>Claims that meat consumption is a waste of world food
> resources are equally weak.  
> 
> Try telling that to the starving people in Ethiopia where they have stripped 
> the land of vegetation because they switched from an agrarian diet to cattle 
> grazing.  

Don't blame starvation in Africa on anything but the screwed
political situation in the area.  You're trying to create
associations between meat-eating and world hunger that doesn't
exist.  Existing food production resources, I understand,
could support a world population of 8 billion.

> >>>Since somebody brought it up: I too have strong objections
> >>>to the killing of fur-bearing animals for their pelts.
> >>>I think this is especially gross since fur coats are a 
> >>>symbol of wealth and decadence.  
> 
> And eating meat isn't the highest symbol of wealth and decadence?  Please, 
> look at what you're saying!  Man has logic, but he uses it to justify his 
> desires.  What you've presented as a valid argument is, to me, merely 
> illogical logic.
> -------
> Gita Devi

If you think eating meat is the highest symbol of wealth and
decadence you're out to lunch.  Eating meat is something that
most Americans do every day without pretense.  Eating anything
of nutritive value (e.g. meat) is closely related to one's survival 
instinct.  I can't see putting it in the same category as killing poor 
defenseless furbearers just so you can show off at cocktail parties.
Wearing furs is clearly an ostentatious expression of wealth.
The difference is pretty obvious to me.  I don't see what's 
illogical about this.

steve