Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!noao!mcdsun!mcdchg!chinet!rhonda
From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Imported woman's Fox Fur Coats
Message-ID: <1854@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Nov-87 21:41:29 EST
Article-I.D.: chinet.1854
Posted: Tue Nov 17 21:41:29 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 16:17:35 EST
References: <132@blic.BLI.COM> <4830@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <1841@chinet.UUCP> <5942@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Chinet, Chicago Ill.
Lines: 80
Keywords: Fox Coats

In article <5942@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1841@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
>>The hypocrisy of these "friends of animals" is often very amusing.  They often
>>wear leather shoes, they eat meat, they keep animals as pets (denying them
>>the right to live free lives on their own), and THEN scream about other
>>people and the horrible things THEY do to animals.  Sheesh!
>
>I am really impressed.  Rhonda Scribner has not only talked to every single
>animal lover in the whole world, but she has checked into their closets
>and their refrigerators.  She knows that all animal lovers eat meat!  (I
>know some veggie animal lovers who will be very surprised.)

Skyler, if you read what I wrote, you'd see that I said these traits OFTEN
apply.  I didn't presume to speak for the cases of ALL "animal lovers," I
made a statement about traits common among such people.  You DID presume that
I was speaking for the cases of all such people, though.  However, of all the
traits I mentioned, the one you didn't question or comment on at all was
"ownership" of animals by these animal lovers.  Could this be because so many
of these "animal lovers" finds the idea of caging or otherwise confining an
animal for their own pleasure to be fine and dandy?  How many of them keep
their pets in cages?  How many mutilate them through neutering and declawing,
ostensibly "for their own good?"  

>Since we're telling stories, I'll tell one too.  I know a woman who has
>about three neurons firing in her brain.  She was upset because the animal
>rights activists were out on Sproul showing "gross" pictures.  
>

I guess it's all right for you to imply things about people who disagree with
you on the issue of animal rights having limited brain capacity, but not all
right for me to point out traits common among many (though not "all") "friends
of animals."  Skyler, we have a dog, so believe me my comments about pet
ownership are just me playing devil's advocate.  What I'm trying to do is show
the hypocrisy of these so called "friends of animals."  And you're helping.

>Listen carefully, because this might be tough.  Some animals are carnivores.
>They must have meat.  It would be cruel to deny them meat.  Some animals
>are not carnivores (like humans) and can get by on very little or no meat.
>(We are omnivores.)

Well, it wasn't as tough as you thought.  I understood what you said.  We are
"omnivores."  Do you know what "omnivore" means?  It means an eater of BOTH
animal and vegetable substance!  Apparently, it was tougher for you than it
was for me. :-)

>In the wild, humans would almost certainly have to
>eat some meat, but not in places that have grocery stores selling lots
>of non-meat sources of protein.  Most intelligent people who are opposed
>to cruelty to animals are opposed to unnecessary cruelty.  It is necessary
>for cats to eat meat.  It is not necessary for a woman to have a chinchilla
>coat.

So killing a cow for your cat is all right, then?  That sort of blows a little
hole in your "unnecessary cruelty" idea, doesn't it?  Besides, who are you to
say what is and isn't necessary for other people?  If I want to wear a
chinchilla coat, I have the right to wear one without any of the "friends of
animals" goons throwing blood on it because they think it's amusing.

By the way, my sister decided to live as a vegetarian, because she thought it
was the "organic" thing to do.  She ate a rather well balanced vegetarian
diet, and managed to get quite sick because of it.  It seems that people do
sometimes need meat.  But even if people decide to eat meat because they LIKE
it, is there something wrong in that?  Or are we only supposed to do things
that are "necessary" and not those that are just pleasurable?  Does the
Berkeley Political Correctness Police publish a pamphlet telling us all what
we can and cannot do?  Let me know, I'll order one so I can tear it to pieces.

>>The next time you see one of these "friends of animals" eating a veal cutlet,
>>tell them how veal is prepared.  They'll probably throw up all over their
>>leather shoes.
>
>If I ever meet a friend of an animal who eats veal, I will.  Since I have
>never met one, however, I doubt that will happen.

I take it by your apparent omission that you DON'T doubt that you will ever
meet one who wears leather shoes or other garments.  My point was that at
least one or more of the traits I described does apply to almost all of the
people who talk about being "friends of animals."  Thanks for helping me
find the hypocrisy I was looking for.
								--Rhonda