Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!rtech!mtxinu!unisoft!gethen!farren From: farren@gethen.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: Imported woman's Fox Fur Coats Message-ID: <375@gethen.UUCP> Date: Sun, 22-Nov-87 06:32:10 EST Article-I.D.: gethen.375 Posted: Sun Nov 22 06:32:10 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Nov-87 07:28:15 EST References: <132@blic.BLI.COM> <4830@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <1841@chinet.UUCP> <357@gethen.UUCP> <1878@chinet.UUCP> Reply-To: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) Organization: Sci-Fido - Unix in Oakland Lines: 100 Keywords: Fox Coats, Devil's Advocates, Hypocrisy In article <1878@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: [double angles are my posting] > >Slaughtering an animal to make clothes and food for YOU is all right, >but killing an animal for clothing for someone else and food for SCAVENGERS >or FLIES, that's not all right? Are you sure you're phrasing your argument >correctly? Are your needs more important than those of scavengers or flies? >Efficient and maximal based on what? Efficient and maximal use of the products which come from that animal which I have caused to die on my behalf, of course. Slaughtering an animal which has been bred specifically in order to be slaughtered, and making good use of as much of its carcase as is possible, seems to me to be a much better rationale for killing that animal than simply to kill it, remove its skin, discard the rest (and yes, the flies and scavengers do benefit, but then, they would have eventually, anyway) simply so some person somewhere can use its skin for decoration. >What respect do the animals whose meat you eat actually get? How do you know >this? What respect would you hope they would get? The animals whose meat I eat get respect, in that I am aware of the sacrifice, and try very diligently to remain so aware. What I hope that they would get, and, sadly, cannot find, is that they would be treated well up to the time that they are killed, and that that killing not be cruel and mean-spirited. There is nothing more that I can offer, so I offer what I can. I do not feel guilty for the deaths I have caused; I have caused them in good faith and with full knowlege. I have also personally killed for my food, and can live with that - have you done as much? >>My cat would much rather be in my house, being fed regularly, and >>having a lifespan some five times longer than the average cat living >>in the wild, I'm sure. > >Replace the words "my cat" with "a human being." Does this argument still >hold? You trivialize what you are denying to your cat, but I doubt you >would dismiss free life as a human as being "short, painful, and a continual >struggle," justifying the confinement of a person (combined of course with >care and regular feeding) the way you justify it for your cat. I do NOT trivialize what I am denying to my cat. You, however, are trivializing what I offer it. Any small amount of research you might do would show the vast difference in the lifespan of domestic animals in the wild as opposed to those animals in good homes. The valid comparison is between people who live in wilderness, without a sufficient food supply and with no means of improving that situation, to those who live in nice middle-class homes, with supermarkets nearby. You tell me which of those are leading happier and more fulfilled lives. >Someone else could just as easily say that the animals and plants that YOU >eat and make clothes out of died for NOTHING, and that the rest of us are >diminished by their deaths. And what would you respond? Might you say >"That's all right, though. I NEED my filet mignon?" Certainly not. I would respond that I understood their concern, and that I had come to my position after considerable thought and soul-searching. That I had considered, strongly, the ethical and moral dilemma that we all are in, requiring other entities to die for our benefit, and that the position I had arrived at was not perfect, but was one which I accepted, including accepting the guilt which that dilemma causes. I cannot accept the wanton killing of animals for frivolity. It is bad enough that we must kill to survive; it is abhorrent to me that we will kill for pleasure and vanity. >>>Not amused. >> >>Nor sensitive. Nor reasoning. > >I guess not. At least not by your personal value judgments on the subject. >And that's what matters, right? That is EXACTLY what matters. Every person must make their own judgement of their own action. To fail to do this is an abrogation of a basic duty in an existence where there are other beings which must be considered. I have made mine, right or wrong. You are free to make yours; I am just sorry that yours seem to show so little real concern with the others who must share your existence. That is my basic complaint with your postings, and it spreads throughout most of the postings from you that I have seen. Regardless of the topic, regardless of whether you are agreeing or disagreeing, your writing always seems to come from a perspective of "Rhonda vs. the World". While you have chosen your own viewpoint, and that viewpoint often infuriates me, I find, when I can think about it without being distracted by my emotional reactions, that I feel more saddened at how lonely you must be in a world that is so much against you than angered at your expression of that. I will NOT guarantee that I will not flame you violently should you key into my anger again; I would only hope that you could see, sometimes at least, that this is my anger at your ideas, not my anger at Rhonda Scribner. Unless, of course, you like confrontation; but then you should be aware that a relationship of continuous confrontation is one which generates anger. -- ---------------- Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"