A Little Skull, if you please.
Jane Landis
> Anyone care to offer an opinion, or suggest a site that I can pass
> along?
A search turned up Majors Scientific Books in Dallas at
http://www.majors.com/custpage/msbdal/msbdalix.html,
with a listing of natural anatomical models for sale at
http://www.majors.com/custpage/msbdal/models.html
Jane Landis
Jane
Brooke Babineau
and verbal spewing. Not to mention assorted Monaco Lewinsky references.
However, on another newsgroup someone posted the following request:
WTB: HUMAN SKULL (kl...@direct.ca (Koko), 9/20/98 6:55)
Does anyone have a *real* human skull for sale? I'm interested
in acquiring one and will pay a fair price. The specimen must be
*real*. I'm not interested in models or any other facsimiles.
Before anyone asks, the skull will not be used for any morbid
purposes. It will be used to decorate my study and to serve as an
amusing conversation-piece.
Thank you.
I was surprised at the outcry of shock and dismay that this generated.
Given that I am a writer, and therefore different, I personally don't
see anything wrong with this.
The jaws of a Tiger shark (youthful adventure) and the skull of a coyote
(a gift) adorn my writing area; and I, too, have occasionally considered
acquiring a similar contemplation piece.
Anyone care to offer an opinion, or suggest a site that I can pass
along?
Regards,
Brooke Babineau
Creative 1
ZenTim
I have a used skull. It's not in very good condition.
You just have to get it out of me, pick out the yuck parts, and pay a small
fee.
Lemmie know if you're intrested!
Tim
Blair P. Houghton
>I have a used skull. It's not in very good condition.
>You just have to get it out of me, pick out the yuck parts, and pay a small
>fee.
I.e., You'll get my skull when you pry it from my
cold, dead scalp.
--Blair
"Mind the conundra."
Blair P. Houghton
>I know this will probably generate sufficient amount of gasps, rants,
>and verbal spewing. Not to mention assorted Monaco Lewinsky references.
Nice typo.
-- Monaco Lewinsky, Private Eye. --
Has a ring to it.
>However, on another newsgroup someone posted the following request:
>WTB: HUMAN SKULL (kl...@direct.ca (Koko), 9/20/98 6:55)
> Does anyone have a *real* human skull for sale? I'm interested
>in acquiring one and will pay a fair price. The specimen must be
>*real*. I'm not interested in models or any other facsimiles.
> Before anyone asks, the skull will not be used for any morbid
>purposes. It will be used to decorate my study and to serve as an
>amusing conversation-piece.
Which is, despite his protestations, morbid.
However...
The usual means of gathering human bones for decorative
purposes is to dig them up yourself. This is also the
most moral, as the ethics of an economy in body parts
are murky; whereas those of graverobbing are clear.
If all else fails, you can always burgle the premises
of the Skull and Bones Club at Yale University. Not
only are they well stocked, but the selection is cherce.
--Blair
"Yours in Mwa-ha-ha-ha."
Steven Weller
Almost any scientific supply copany can provide you with a human skull.
By international treaty, it will come from India, which is the only
country that can legally sell and/or export human bones for scientific
or medical use (last I read, anyway). You should be able to find a few
sources on the web - I remember dealing with Wards' Scientific years ago
(not related to Montgomery Wards Department Store, to my knowledge) and
there are several others.
There are a couple of places here in LA that deal in such things as well -
someplace on Melrose called Necro-something comes to mind. They have
bones of people and animals, and a really weird line of mice, preserved
by taxidermy, and dressed up and posed in odd positions (like little mouse
vampires in capes, that sort of thing).
As for morality (and this is coming from someone who used to work in the
dead body industry), a corpse is just lie an empty house. Someone used
to live there, and now they don't. If you want to have the severed head
of a homeless person from India displayed in your den or rec room, knock
yourself out. It's pretty expensive (probalby low to mid three figures
by now) compared to a model (I have a few models, for various odd reasons)
but if it makes you happy, there's no real reason not to.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
andrea bachrach
generally available through medical supply catalogues to members of the
profession for teaching purposes ( as are complete human
skeletons)....others, antiquities and collectibles are sometimes sold at
auction or to museums through reputable dealers...as in "What am I bid
for this 4,000 year-old skull of a Mayan child"....do I hear $250,000
from the gentleman from the American Museum of Natural History???"....
Since physicians used to have them around a lot ( before they had really
good models) your friend might come across one in a
antique/collectibles shop specializing in medical paraphenalia.
It is highly ill advised to go the Jeffrey Dahmer route and collect them
from your dates as momentos. ForensicGirl
Gregory Kagel
"The usual means of gathering human bones for decorative
purposes is to dig them up yourself. This is also the
most moral, as the ethics of an economy in body parts
are murky; whereas those of graverobbing are clear."
Graverobbing, like VCR repair, is a job best left to the professionals.
You might try the English outfit, Burke & Hare. They specialize in this
sort of thing. They keep odd hours and aren't in the office much, so they
might be a little hard to reach. Sorry I don't have a phone number.
Gregory Kagel
L
<cre8...@webbynet.com> wrote:
>
>WTB: HUMAN SKULL (kl...@direct.ca (Koko), 9/20/98 6:55)
>
>I was surprised at the outcry of shock and dismay that this generated.
>
>Given that I am a writer, and therefore different, I personally don't
>see anything wrong with this.
>
>The jaws of a Tiger shark (youthful adventure) and the skull of a coyote
>(a gift) adorn my writing area; and I, too, have occasionally considered
>acquiring a similar contemplation piece.
>
>Anyone care to offer an opinion, or suggest a site that I can pass
>along?
i don't see how being a writer has anything to do with it, personally.
i am, however, a vegetarian. i find it odd that people who protest
these things--and ways of getting them--are usually meat eaters.
i see no diff between the human skull on the desk and the animal skull
on the desk. but i don't pass judgement on the person behind the desk.
i have a problem with murder (of any life form), but then i respect
life. people who don't respect life (read flesh eaters) also have that
problem... which baffles me to no end.
no doubt this opinion will bring down the wrath of folks everywhere,
but, well, so what.
L.
John McFetridge
What seems to bring up the morality issue (remember when Mikey wanted
to buy the Elephant Man's remains?) might be hidden here in your
statement that the only human bones 'legally' sold come from a country
with some pretty rigid rankings of human worth.
"If you want the severed head of a homeless person from India," has
some, ah, implications.
If this is true, it won't be long before American heads are for sale.
Will they be cheaper?
John McF
On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:12:57 GMT, az...@lafn.org (Steven Weller)
wrote:
dean...@webemail.net
L...@bsfetching.com (L) wrote:
>
> i am, however, a vegetarian. i find it odd that people who protest
> these things--and ways of getting them--are usually meat eaters.
>
> i have a problem with murder (of any life form), but then i respect
> life. people who don't respect life (read flesh eaters) also have that
> problem... which baffles me to no end.
>
> no doubt this opinion will bring down the wrath of folks everywhere,
> but, well, so what.
Well L, I don't know about bringing out their wrath, but it might
be a trifle easier to just put a big target on your back, and head
out to where lots of hunters are.
I don't disagree with your basic philosophy. Seriously, I don't.
But I always have to question the rational of people who choose
not to eat meat for ethical reasons. Why do you draw the line
at mammals--or mammals and fowl--or mammals, fowl and
fish? Lettuce is life too. So are carrots and potatoes.
I'm exaggerating, but I'm really not. Many spiritual philosophies
(native American in particular, aboriginals in general) believe that
life, spirituality, even consciousness on some level, abides in all
forms of matter--animal, vegetable, even mineral. I personally
think there may be some truth to that and even some scientific
evidence on a most basic of energy levels to back that up.
Quantum physics and some religions/spiritualities actually
seem to merge at the fringes.
This sounds nuts, I know, but I actually will pick an ant out
of my bathtub and put it outside so as not to wash it down
the drain. I believe that is partly my way of showing respect
to all life. Not to kill needlessly. But I also will eat meat, L.
I believe that if there is a conscious acknowledgment to the
entity that has provided its life, and now flesh, to my table,
then I am showing respect (isn't that part of the idea behind
prayer and saying grace?).
I eat beef rarely. Chicken and fish semi-frequently. But
I do eat them. And I don't believe it is morally wrong to
do so. And yes, I have actually killed my own chickens
and fish in the past. (I tried to do that with cows, but they're
big and pretty fast when they want to be.)
Max Ehrmann, who wrote DESIDERATA in 1927, said
in that poem:
"You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and
the stars, you have a right to be here."
I agree with that. We're all equal--all species, all forms of
matter--just different in many numerous, numerous ways.
So again I ask, L--and none of this has been meant as
a criticism--if you truly respect ALL life, and that prohibits
you from eating life, how are you able to draw the line and
why is one type of life more worthy than another?
Now see, L. You're going to have MY company when it
comes to people attacking us for bizarre philosophies.
And I'll bet you a HUGE steak dinner most are going to
think I'm weirder than you.
Dean
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
John McFetridge
>i have a problem with murder (of any life form), but then i respect
>life. people who don't respect life (read flesh eaters) also have that
>problem... which baffles me to no end.
You make a good point. It's all a matter of degree, where we draw the
line. A science fiction writer said once that he hoped in the future
killing someone would be looked upon as we do the idea of eating
someone.
We may be headed in the opposite direction.
For now, a lot of us are just hoping to draw the line at people.
As writers, or people who appreciate story-telling, we ought to at
least consier the symbolism inherent in a human skull as an
"amusement." It just seems like a slippery slope to me.
John McF
Brooke Babineau
>
> I have a used skull. It's not in very good condition.
> You just have to get it out of me, pick out the yuck parts, and pay a small
> fee.
>
>
> Tim
Are you in a branch of government service? I have been given to
understand that those models have the least amount of mileage on them,
and almost constitute an "unused" rating.
Brooke (before you reap)
Blair P. Houghton
>"If you want the severed head of a homeless person from India," has
>some, ah, implications.
>
>If this is true, it won't be long before American heads are for sale.
>Will they be cheaper?
No. India has enough "homeless people" to fill every home
in America.
--Blair
"Volume, volume, volume!"
Steven Weller
As far as vegitarians (vegans, to be PC) go, my favorite sub-sect is the
fruitarians, who will only eat those parts of a plant that are designed
to be eaten without harming the parent plant. They'll eat an apple because
they can do so without hurting the tree or preventing the seeds from germ-
inating, but won't eat a carrot because to do so would kill the whole plant,
and that would be taking a life.
As for the whole skull thing, I doubt that American skulls will ever be
cheaper than Indian skulls, mostly because of that whole international
treaty thing, but largely because we Yanks value our dead so much more
than we do the same sack of protoplasm when it's still alive and kicking.
Bck in the day, I remember reading (or maybe hearing from one of my collegues)
that there are more laws on the books regarding how a dead prisoner's body
has to be treated than there are for a live prisoner's body, and that seems
about par for the course. No matter how much we reviled or ignored some-
one in life, there's usually soeone around who wants to make sure the gey
a "decent burial" once they're dead.
I'd be more than happy to give you my own skull for your amusement and
other needs, but I'm going to be needing it myself for a couple more years,
and after that, it has obligations of its own. You might get someone near
and dear to you to will you theirs (though excarnation can be a bit of a
chore, and you might have trouble finding a cooperative mortician), and I know of at least one person who got a nice grisly one in Mexico - aparently they
have some fairly funky burial customs South of the Border, which include
digging up old corpses when the family can no longer make monthly payments
on the grave, and burieing someone else in the same plot. So if you hang
around the poorer communities' cemetaries, you might literally be able to
pick something up in the street for free.
As for most of the human bones from India being from the homeless, it's just
because their the ones who don't have anyone to make "other arrangeents" when
they die. The State ends up with the corpse (as here in the US) but instead
of Potter's Field, they get cleaned up and crated and Serve the Greater Good
by helping med school students the world over learn the difference between
a tibia and a fibula.
Which, when you think of it, isn't the worst legacy a person could ask for.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
joh...@ican.net (John McFetridge) wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:01:59 GMT, L...@bsfetching.com (L) wrote:
>
> >i have a problem with murder (of any life form), but then i respect
> >life. people who don't respect life (read flesh eaters)
Gee, that's a strong opinion, isn't it? Why should it matter to you what
anyone else eats? And don't we have to kill plants to eat them, so isn't all
eating to a degree a disrespect for life? Well, of course not!
Reminds me of a news story I saw on TV a few weeks back. Because of the heavy
number of fallen trees in the Carolinas as a result of hurricane Bonnie, there
was a problem of "orphaned" squirrels. Some very odd organization was runnig
about "adopting" the squirrels. They simply were not making any sense to me.
There are plenty of hungry people out there who could have used a good meal of
squirrel stew, and it was a cruel waste of time and energy directed at lower
animals.
I don't know about your family, but mine was living off the land two
generations ago, and that meant eating what you could grow, catch or shoot.
You can go back oh about 100,000 years in human history and the story isn't
much different.
I just hope that your opinion doesn't mean you have a lower opinion of the
bulk of humanity, for putting yourself above others just isn't Our Father's
way.
also have that
> >problem... which baffles me to no end.
>
> You make a good point. It's all a matter of degree, where we draw the
> line. A science fiction writer said once that he hoped in the future
> killing someone would be looked upon as we do the idea of eating
> someone.
>
> We may be headed in the opposite direction.
>
> For now, a lot of us are just hoping to draw the line at people.
>
> As writers, or people who appreciate story-telling, we ought to at
> least consier the symbolism inherent in a human skull as an
> "amusement." It just seems like a slippery slope to me.
>
> John McF
>
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
Richard Milton
I missed the original post which I assume asked where
one can obtain human remains.
In the United Kingdom the position is that it is illegal
to possess any human body parts unless you are licensed
to do so.
A sculptor was recently prosecuted here because he
obtained human bones from a morgue and used them in his
sculptures.
There might well be similar laws in some US States.
Richard
L
like you, i also will go out of my way to make sure the ant doesn't go
down the drain. mosquito lands on me... if it gets it's beak into my
flesh, i let it finish and fly away. if it doesn't i shoo it away.
when people hear this their general response is that i'm crazy and
then they accuse me of killing microsized life forms with each step i
take and with each wipe of my eye. to which i generally respond with a
"whatever..." as they're usually skirting the issue.
as a rule, a few years ago i decided that i was no longer going to
discuss my diet. i don't care what you eat, she eats, he eats, etc.
i'm not out to convert anyone.
(as an aside, one of my web sites states that i'm vegetarian. the site
has links to over 300 other sites with interests as varied as music,
food, travel, movies, books, etc. a large chunk of the mail i get from
strangers are insults hurled because i'm vegetarian... freaks!)
><snip sane post about plant life forms>
i don't disagree with you, Dean. i've been vegetarian for a decade now
and your argument is one i've heard many times--though mostly from
people who use it as ammunition to shoot you down rather than inquire
further into your decisions. "how do you know a pepper can't scream?"
well, i don't. to put it simply, i recognize the hypocrisy of my
decision and have chosen to live with it. to me, the point of
vegetarianism is to go through life harming as little other life as
possible and that is what i try to do. i am not always successful.
L.
Abby
>
> But Dean
>
> If you're argument and blurring of that line applies to why vegetarians
> shouldn't eat plants it also gives cause to wonder why meat-eaters
> shouldn't eat people.
Jeez, Gary, just how much twisting of an issue are you capable of?
Skip Press
>And yes, I have actually killed my own chickens
>and fish in the past. (I tried to do that with cows, but they're
>big and pretty fast when they want to be.)
And then quoted:
>Max Ehrmann, who wrote DESIDERATA in 1927, said
>in that poem:
>
>"You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and
>the stars, you have a right to be here."
To kill a cow, all you need is a sledgehammer and a sharp blow right
between the eyes, or any projectile larger than a .22 applied in the same
general area.
"You have a right to kill a cow, because they can't slap you."
Skip Press, 1998
B.J. West
> If you're argument and blurring of that line applies to why vegetarians
> shouldn't eat plants it also gives cause to wonder why meat-eaters
> shouldn't eat people.
Yes, that is a good question, isn't it?
I can understand laws against murder. I can see laws being made against eating
*live* humans. But doesn't it seem like we waste an awful lot of meat by burying
our dead? Oh, sure, you'd want to keep the Food and Drug people in on the loop,
I know a lot of people that would not qualify as USDA prime, but then again, I
know quite a few that would be damned good eating...
Serve me with BBQ sauce when I'm gone,
Beej
(chomp, schlurp, chomp)
----------
B.J. West - Art Direction, Design, Animation
http://www.strafe.com/bj
----------
Strafe's Guide to Streetspeak!
http://www.strafe.com
----------
"Writing is easy. All you do is sit staring at a blank sheet
of paper until the drops of blood form on your forehead."
- Gene Fowler
Abby
>
> Abby wrote in message <361021...@aol.com>...
> >Gary Pollard wrote:
> >>
> >> But Dean
> >>
> vegetarians
> >> shouldn't eat plants it also gives cause to wonder why meat-eaters
> >> shouldn't eat people.
> >
>
> will that be all ma'am?
Nope. That was all.
Dean Hart
> But Dean
>
> If you're argument and blurring of that line applies to why vegetarians
> shouldn't eat plants it also gives cause to wonder why meat-eaters
> shouldn't eat people.
Well Gary, actually I DON'T see a problem with people eating
human flesh under certain conditions. Not that I've done it, not
that I plan on doing it. But certainly, in times of crisis, severe
starvation, I think it should be considered as one POSSIBLE
solution. It certainly worked for the Donner Party. It worked
for the soccer team downed in the Andes.
Now with all of that said, let me add with a knowing smile,
I just LOVE when YOU start trolling, Gary. You know
as well as I do all the more logical reasons NOT to
consume human flesh--and those reasons have
little to do with religion, spirituality, or even morality,
and LOTS to do with human biology and the health
threats inherent in such dietary consumption.
There are LOADS of fun things we can contract from
eating cow, fowl, fish and even flora. But most of those
pale in comparison to what we could get from ingesting
human flesh. Eat a diseased human, catch most of
the diseases. Simple logic, simple safety on
why to avoid cannibalism.
And I'm certain you also know, Gary, that's part of the reason
behind historical avoiding pork in the Judaic tradition. Pigs are the
closest mammals to humans in biological responses to contagious
diseases. Heck, pigs are so close to us in metabolism
that they are the ONLY other mammals that sweat as we do.
And it is because of those many similarities that pigs are so
often used in medical research. So if we partake from an
infected pig, well chances are we'll get what the pig had--just
like would happen if we ate human--especially if the meat
were improperly prepared. (Fortunately, modern science
and husbandry have eliminated most of the porcine concerns.
Trichinosis is NOT a particularly pleasant way to die. Human
concerns, however, still abound.)
And...
With all of THAT said...
Let me just add (still smiling)...
Gary, I don't remember stating that vegetarians shouldn't eat
vegetables. I don't even remember saying people shouldn't
eat meat. I thought I made if very clear that I personally eat
both. And the questions that I raised were exactly that--questions.
Questions aimed at ONE individual and made for the sole purpose
of seeking understanding of HIS stance and why HE chose
to draw the lines where he did. He chose his path for moral
reason. I was curious how far those morals extended and
why they halted where they did. Had he said he were
a vegetarian for health reasons, I would never even have
responded.
But then again, Gar--since I think I know you fairly well--you
probably also already knew that too...now didn't cha?
So thanks for trolling in my little pond. I really liked your neatly
flashing and spinning lure. It caught my eye and made me
take a look. I even nibbled. (But I bit on as hard as I'm gonna bite,
and I ain't biting on any harder.) I hope to see you again, the next
time you head out fishing.
Oh...and as you ALSO know...
Seriously...
Thanks. As always, I enjoy the discourse with you.
Dean
Skip Press
>see, it's attitudes like this that make me post as i originally did.
>to me, calling any animal a "lower animal" is exactly the disrespect i
>was talking about. who the fuck are you to declare yourself better
>than a squirrell? because you're a human being? please.
I am better than a squirrell (that's an English squirrel because it's
spelled with two Ls). There. I've said it.
Gary Pollard
If you're argument and blurring of that line applies to why vegetarians
shouldn't eat plants it also gives cause to wonder why meat-eaters
shouldn't eat people.
Gary
dean...@webemail.net wrote in message
<6uoe9o$kmn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
> L...@bsfetching.com (L) wrote:
>>
>> i am, however, a vegetarian. i find it odd that people who protest
>> these things--and ways of getting them--are usually meat eaters.
>>
>> i have a problem with murder (of any life form), but then i respect
>> life. people who don't respect life (read flesh eaters) also have
that
>> problem... which baffles me to no end.
>>
>do so. And yes, I have actually killed my own chickens
>and fish in the past. (I tried to do that with cows, but they're
>big and pretty fast when they want to be.)
>
>Max Ehrmann, who wrote DESIDERATA in 1927, said
>in that poem:
>
>"You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and
>the stars, you have a right to be here."
>
>I agree with that. We're all equal--all species, all forms of
>matter--just different in many numerous, numerous ways.
>
>So again I ask, L--and none of this has been meant as
>a criticism--if you truly respect ALL life, and that prohibits
>you from eating life, how are you able to draw the line and
>why is one type of life more worthy than another?
>
>Now see, L. You're going to have MY company when it
>comes to people attacking us for bizarre philosophies.
>And I'll bet you a HUGE steak dinner most are going to
>think I'm weirder than you.
>
>Dean
>
Gary Pollard
>>
>> If you're argument and blurring of that line applies to why
vegetarians
>> shouldn't eat plants it also gives cause to wonder why meat-eaters
>> shouldn't eat people.
>
Oh. And did you have a point apart from the personal ad-hominem dig? Or
will that be all ma'am?
Gary
Dstrbd042
>
>As far as vegitarians (vegans, to be PC) go ::snip::
No.
Not to be PC.
Two different things.
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
Dstrbd042
I'll put out your eyes, and SKULLFUCK YOU BOY!
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
Sorry.
Been in my head thru the whole thread.
Plu I'm in a shit mood...and I even have a reason!
Dstrbd042
>Gary Pollard wrote:
>
>> If you're argument and blurring of that line applies to why vegetarians
>> shouldn't eat plants it also gives cause to wonder why meat-eaters
>> shouldn't eat people.
>
If vegetarians eat vegetables...
What do humanitarians eat?
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
Gary Pollard
I'd generally considered you, at 16, a good contrast to our purportedly
27 year old moron, an example of how he might think if he had a tenth of
a brain and a bit of a life (or ANY sex life that didn't involve the
family's pet pig).
You may have been reading too many of the pencil-dicked wanker's posts.
I imagine it's a temporary aberration though.
Gary
Dstrbd042 wrote in message
<19980928202915...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
Dstrbd042
>
>Hmm. Careful.
>
>I'd generally considered you, at 16, a good contrast to our purportedly
>27 year old moron, an example of how he might think if he had a tenth of
>a brain and a bit of a life (or ANY sex life that didn't involve the
>family's pet pig).
>
>You may have been reading too many of the pencil-dicked wanker's posts.
>I imagine it's a temporary aberration though.
>
>Gary
Ugh.
Don't take it like that.
Haven't you seen Full Metal Jacket?
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
I didn't know they could *stack* shit that high...
Gary Pollard
And I wasn't being too serious. I know you do not belong to THAT genus.
My cats have passed worms that are more intelligent than the aforesaid
self-pleasurer.
Gary
Dstrbd042 wrote in message
<19980928220108...@ng20.aol.com>...
John McFetridge
wrote:
>Well Gary, actually I DON'T see a problem with people eating
>human flesh under certain conditions. Not that I've done it, not
>that I plan on doing it. But certainly, in times of crisis, severe
>starvation, I think it should be considered as one POSSIBLE
>solution. It certainly worked for the Donner Party. It worked
>for the soccer team downed in the Andes.
In 1976 I went to the theatre and saw the original Mexican film about
that soccer team in the Andes. It was called Survive. For the first
ten or fifteen minutes of the film the audience seemed to be going
with it, but it was so bad that people started to laugh. Nervous
laughter at first, to be sure, but laughter.
By the mid point in the film people were laughing at every line. Some
of it seemed so intentionally funny. "They walked west," the narrator
said in a deep, important sounding voice. Then brightened suddenly and
continued, "Had they walked east only three miles they would have
found a fully stocked ski resort!" And the film actually cut to people
in a ski resort having a party. The plane may have actually crashed
close to a ski resort, but the scene was presented as a comedy would
have.
It just went on and on getting sillier and sillier. A guy on his
deathbed makes the others promise not to eat his sister, Maria. The
moment his final breath passes his lips they race right to Maria and
dig her up -- they had to pass other corpses to get to her.
Leaving the theatre that night was a strange experience. Very
different from Alive, that's for sure.
John McF
MwsReader
Richard Milton wrote:
> In the United Kingdom the position is that it is illegal
> to possess any human body parts unless you are licensed
> to do so.
> A sculptor was recently prosecuted here because he
> obtained human bones from a morgue and used them in his
> sculptures.
> There might well be similar laws in some US States.
If there are, I'm a criminal. (Well, more of one, as the case may be...) My
father never sufficiently appreciated the skull that was given to him when
he was a young doctor, but it holds a place of honor overlooking my work
space. It was old when he got it years ago, so it has that dark greenish-
brown tint that old skulls get. Oh, and it's sliced across the top (where the
top of the forehead would be.) It's hinged, and there's a little metal box
just
inside. It's a perfect place to keep headphone adapter plugs and other
important goodies.
It's funny, because I don't feel bad about staring up at this old guy when
I'm pondering things. In fact, I'd be thrilled to know that my skull might
decorate somebody's shelf a hundred years from now.
JohnRobie
dean...@webemail.net
Skip Press wrote:
> To kill a cow, all you need is a sledgehammer and a sharp blow right
> between the eyes, or any projectile larger than a .22 applied in the same
> general area.
>
> "You have a right to kill a cow, because they can't slap you."
>
> Skip Press, 1998
You're a very, very strange person, and sometimes...you scare me.
Listen, that sledgehammer thing--that just work on cows...or would it
work on say...a Jervis too?
BetterDuck
hear a tape last week that contained a bit Phil did called, "All You
Can Eat Negro" Classic!! No offense to those offended, Phil and I both
deal in extreme parody. I know that bit must have offended some people,
and I fully respect your ability to complain to your congressman/woman
about the current laws governing parody. But I thank Uncle Luke for
fighting the Supreme Court so I wouldnt have to.
Piece,
Better Duck
Gary Pollard
>Gary Pollard wrote:
>
>> But Dean
>>
>> If you're argument and blurring of that line applies to why
vegetarians
>> shouldn't eat plants it also gives cause to wonder why meat-eaters
>> shouldn't eat people.
>
>Well Gary, actually I DON'T see a problem with people eating
>human flesh under certain conditions. Not that I've done it, not
>that I plan on doing it. But certainly, in times of crisis, severe
>starvation, I think it should be considered as one POSSIBLE
>solution. It certainly worked for the Donner Party. It worked
>for the soccer team downed in the Andes.
>
>Now with all of that said, let me add with a knowing smile,
>I just LOVE when YOU start trolling, Gary.
I must confess Dean that I am a tad disappointed in you here. I had not
previously considered you as one of those people for whom the term
"trolling" means "expressing a view different from mine."
Perhaps you DO have a rationale for why my questioning of your views may
be considered trolling while your questioning of the original poster is
not, but I somehow doubt it is a well-considered one.
I am in complete earnest. I speak as someone who lived as a vegetarian
for a while and who has long been concerned with the ethical dilemmas
posed by people's treatment of animals. I live next door to a market
where I see cruelty every day.
>You know
>as well as I do all the more logical reasons NOT to
>consume human flesh--and those reasons have
>little to do with religion, spirituality, or even morality,
>and LOTS to do with human biology and the health
>threats inherent in such dietary consumption.
Now. Big jumps here. You jump from logical reasons to "religion,
spirituality, or even morality". The first two of these are arguably
rarely if ever logical, and the third is often a value judgement based
either on the first two or on our innate sense of taboo.
You make another big jump when you talk of health threats. And, to me,
much of this sounds like human post-facto rationalisation. We KNOW there
are plenty of health threats from eating all kinds of meat, and even
from eggs and dairy produce. We have never chosen to give up milk
because it spread TB, eggs because they contain toxins, and so on. Even
mad cow disease caused only a temporary blip in the sales charts. Most
of us eat pig despite those ailments. Most of us know that not only is a
completely vegetarian diet healthier, it also uses fewer natural
resources and allows land to feed more people. It is healthier and
economically more viable.
Frankly I think that if you put a pig, suffering from many common pig
ailments in front of most of us, and a human corpse suffering from no
ailment other than the heart disease that had killed it, few would
choose to roast the meat from our own species.
No, much of this is post-facto rationalisation. We like steak and so we
attempt to justify the eating of beef.
>There are LOADS of fun things we can contract from
>eating cow, fowl, fish and even flora. But most of those
>pale in comparison to what we could get from ingesting
>human flesh. Eat a diseased human, catch most of
>the diseases. Simple logic, simple safety on
>why to avoid cannibalism.
Sorry, but this is not true. Just as mad cow prions MAY not spread
through most of the body, many human diseases, even if they can kill
you, are localised in effect.
I do not really believe that health is the issue. For it to be so, we'd
have to be socialised into it, and I believe the taboo lies deeper than
socialisation. There ARE, by the way, plenty of animals that do eat
their own species - even chimps have been observed being cannibalistic.
There isn't that much evidence that these things constitute a biological
disadvantage.
>And I'm certain you also know, Gary, that's part of the reason
>behind historical avoiding pork in the Judaic tradition. Pigs are the
>closest mammals to humans in biological responses to contagious
>diseases.
Again, your thesis is somewhat confused by the fact that we DO eat pig,
and that those outside of the Judaic tradition have long done so,
disease or not. And we do eat any number of things that we know have the
power kill us. Need I remind you of Japanese Fugu eaters?
>Gary, I don't remember stating that vegetarians shouldn't eat
>vegetables. I don't even remember saying people shouldn't
>eat meat. I thought I made if very clear that I personally eat
>both. And the questions that I raised were exactly that--questions.
>Questions aimed at ONE individual and made for the sole purpose
>of seeking understanding of HIS stance and why HE chose
>to draw the lines where he did. He chose his path for moral
>reason. I was curious how far those morals extended and
>why they halted where they did. Had he said he were
>a vegetarian for health reasons, I would never even have
>responded.
Yes, they are valid questions, and ones I have thought about a lot. I am
not a vegetarian these days, but to tell you the truth I believe that
for many of us not being vegetarian is the result of moral laziness.
There are contradictions in most moral stances, but for me the dividing
line may be about sentience. I believe that once a being has a central
nervous system and a brain it is pretty damned sentient. Once an animal
shies away from pain and fears death, and many clearly do, there is
not - to me - a convincing argument against it being sentient. For me,
eating a cow is not as bad as eating snails because if I eat a portion
of snails I take six lives, if I eat beef I take a portion of one. I
like the taste of snails, but I no longer eat them. (And you thought YOU
were wacky.)
My questions to you were genuine ones, and were provoked in thought by
philosopher Mary Midgley's "Why Animals Matter" and by my own thinking
on this. It is a little disappointing that while your questions to the
previous posters are considered by you totally appropriate, my questions
to you are - in your view - otherwise.
I've explained above why I don't think the health aspect is a
particularly convincing one, so let's look at the issue of sentience and
awareness. I have lived on a farm. I have visited slaughter-houses. I
KNOW that animals there are aware of coming death and afraid of it. I
don't even believe that the fish wriggling on a hook is unaware of what
is coming.
Any animal that does not feel pain dies. It would not survive one day.
Ergo, all animals that life longer than a day - in my view - experience
pain, discomfort, and would rather not die given the chance.
So let's say that we justify it because we feel the quality of animals'
consciousness or sentience is not up to ours.
Then what happens when we confront the human who is as brain dead as a
vegetable or who has a lower IQ or less awareness of environment than a
healthy cow. Do we say then that level of consciousness is at issue? I
don't think so.
I believe that most of our rationales for meat-eating are about
selfishness. Nothing more noble than that.
For myself, I acknowledge a moral laziness that allows me to eat meat,
but there is a kind of justification of it. We allow these animals to
live and have awareness so that we may eat them. Having seen how
humanity treats species it does NOT consider useful to it I think that
these awarenesses ONLY exist because we are selfish. I take the slightly
Buddhist view that awareness is the universe regarding itself.
Where I DO draw the line is that I say that even if we must kill animals
it is a denigration of our humanity if we kill them in ways that are
painful or needlessly distressing. And, even if we kill animals for
meat, there is NEVER any reason to make them live lives of suffering.
For that reason I don't eat veal, avoid eggs from battery chickens,
and - indeed - avoid battery chickens wherever I can. I have made
documentaries reflecting the questions our treatment of animals raise
(and been hypocritically lambasted for them "How dare you show a
slaughterhouse on TV while we're eating our dinner." Answer: "Oh, and
WHAT are you eating for dinner?") and have filmed in many of the places
where our speciesism is evident. I don't live comfortably with it, and I
don't take it lightly.
Gary
L
>> >i have a problem with murder (of any life form), but then i respect
>> >life. people who don't respect life (read flesh eaters)
>
>Gee, that's a strong opinion, isn't it? Why should it matter to you what
>anyone else eats? And don't we have to kill plants to eat them, so isn't all
>eating to a degree a disrespect for life? Well, of course not!
you refuted my point in your first two sentences and then backed me up
in the second two. i agree, my post was worded wrong. in actuality i
don't believe all flesh eaters disrespect life. but i do believe that
a large number of them disrespect vegetarians' decisions to choose not
to eat flesh for moral reasons. for the most part, i don't tell people
i'm a vegetarian because i don't want to ARGUE with them about it.
believe me, when dean hart posted his questions about why/where i draw
the line, morally, it was the FIRST response to my saying that i was
vegetarian that wasn't a lead in to an argument that i have heard in a
number of years.
><snip story about people who cared about animals that you don't care about>
> and it was a cruel waste of time and energy directed at lower
>animals.
see, it's attitudes like this that make me post as i originally did.
to me, calling any animal a "lower animal" is exactly the disrespect i
was talking about. who the fuck are you to declare yourself better
than a squirrell? because you're a human being? please.
your post reminds me of a joke by dennis miller where he made fun of
people who step over the homeless to spit on someone wearing a fur
coat. the audience applauded enthusiastically. my bet is the majority
of the people approving of the joke would have walked past both the
homeless person and the fur coat wearer. what do you think?
>I don't know about your family, but mine was living off the land two
>generations ago, and that meant eating what you could grow, catch or shoot.
>You can go back oh about 100,000 years in human history and the story isn't
>much different.
yeah, well a few generations ago they probably held slaves, too. i'm
not of the belief that the actions of my ancestors decide the actions
i'm gonna take. you wanna live that way you go right ahead.
being vegetarian, the "ancestor story" is one of the more common (and
lamer) excuses for eating meat that gets thrown at me. what next:
"lions eat deer so should humankind!" trust me, i've heard them all.
>I just hope that your opinion doesn't mean you have a lower opinion of the
>bulk of humanity, for putting yourself above others just isn't Our Father's
>way.
i don't put myself above the bulk of humanity. i believe all animals
are equal, that includes human and non-human animals. you obviously
believe humans are the "better" animal and that is where we differ.
but let me put it this way: if Satchel, my staffordshire terrier, and
I were unfortunate enough to be trapped on an island with you, and i
was forced to either redraw my moral line or die, which of us three do
you think would end up with the "lower animal" short straw?
L.
Brooke Babineau
>
> Skip Press wrote:
>
> > To kill a cow, all you need is a sledgehammer and a sharp blow right
> > between the eyes, or any projectile larger than a .22 applied in the same
> > general area.
> >
> > "You have a right to kill a cow, because they can't slap you."
> >
> > Skip Press, 1998
>
> You're a very, very strange person, and sometimes...you scare me.
>
> Listen, that sledgehammer thing--that just work on cows...or would it
> work on say...a Jervis too?
>
> Dean
>
Hope springs eternal...
Brooke (before you reap)
Brevity
I listen to Phil fairly often, either in the car, or at 4AM when the
repeat his first hour. He can be very funny, but even funnier are the
reactions of callers who have no idea with what or whom they are
dealing. His timing, ability to do voices, and his ability to keep
people believing they are talking to two different people is amazing.
He put out a CD last year of classic bits, and is about to come out
with a second one.
Bob Stone
Associate Editor
Hollywood Scriptwriter
http://www.hollywoodscriptwriter.com
(remove the x to reply via email)
Steven Weller
This is fun.
The sledgehammer thing isn't quite that clear-cut. You don't actually
use an ordinary sledgehammer to slaughter a cow for meat. All you'd get
is a very angry cow, or one with a severe concuscion (sp) or at best, a
sub- or epidural hematoma that would lead to a persistant vegetative state
or (eventually) death. Either that or a really, really messy dead cow.
(by the way, someone else please pick up the slack on 'persitant vegitative
state' and the vegitarian portion of the thread. thanx.)
The devoce used in slaughterhouses is hammer shaped and used like a hammer,
but it actually drives a projectile into the cow's brain to kill it. It's
a lot like the devices you can find in any hardware store, which use .22
blanks to drive nails into concrete. More or less similar to a controlled bullet to the brain, making death more-or-less instantaneous.
As for the guy in GB who was busted for using human body parts in his art,
there's a subtle difference between ordering the skull of some unfortunate
Indian by mail order, and what he did - which was to actually rob local
graveyards and dig up partially decayed, partially mummified remains, plate
them in metal, and display them to the public. He got nicked in the first
place because he was displaying his artwork in the same town where he was
pinching the corpses, and someone (or rather, several someones) actually
RECOGNIZED the face of one of the corpses, as a nice old man who had died
recently. Someone cried foul, Scotland Yard was called in, and once they
peeled back a layer or two of metal veneer, they found evidence of a crime.
By the way, it's not generally the bone itself that turns greenish-brown,
but the old shellack that's used to "preserve" the bone. It interacts with
the oil on a person's skin as the handle the item, and the discoloration
occurs. Same thing happens to old autograaphed baseballs, which they also
used to shellack to "preserve" them.
I AM the font of useless wisdom.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
Dean Hart
Steven Weller wrote
> The sledgehammer thing isn't quite that clear-cut. You don't actually
> use an ordinary sledgehammer to slaughter a cow for meat. All you'd get
> is a very angry cow, or one with a severe concuscion (sp) or at best, a
> sub- or epidural hematoma that would lead to a persistant vegetative state
> or (eventually) death...
> The devoce used in slaughterhouses is...
> More or less similar to a controlled bullet to the brain, making death more-or-less instantaneous.
>
> As for the guy in GB who was busted for using human body parts in his art,
> ...got nicked in the first
> place because he was displaying his artwork in the same town where he was
> pinching the corpses,
>
> By the way, it's not generally the bone itself that turns greenish-brown,
> but the old shellack that's used to "preserve" the bone. It interacts with
> the oil on a person's skin.
>
> I AM the font of useless wisdom.
No, not useless, Steven. Scary. Scary wisdom. Why do you
know these things? Wait...I'm not sure I want to know.
Hey, maybe there IS a reason you got maced twice!
But seriously. The cow details in particular. You work in a
slaughterhouse or something?
Dean
Gary Pollard
>see, it's attitudes like this that make me post as i originally did.
>to me, calling any animal a "lower animal" is exactly the disrespect i
>was talking about. who the fuck are you to declare yourself better
>than a squirrell? because you're a human being? please.
Personally I have little doubt that some human beings ARE lower animals
than some squirrels.
>>I don't know about your family, but mine was living off the land two
>>generations ago, and that meant eating what you could grow, catch or
shoot.
>>You can go back oh about 100,000 years in human history and the story
isn't
>>much different.
>
>yeah, well a few generations ago they probably held slaves, too. i'm
>not of the belief that the actions of my ancestors decide the actions
>i'm gonna take. you wanna live that way you go right ahead.
Original poster also forgets to mention that his ancestors could likely
have eaten BETTER if they had only farmed and eaten crops off that land.
And quite a few more would have gotten to eat to.
>i don't put myself above the bulk of humanity. i believe all animals
>are equal, that includes human and non-human animals. you obviously
>believe humans are the "better" animal and that is where we differ.
I see this as an ongoing problem with the Judaeo-Christian attitude to
animals. Animals are little meat machines put on earth for us to eat.
>but let me put it this way: if Satchel, my staffordshire terrier, and
>I were unfortunate enough to be trapped on an island with you, and i
>was forced to either redraw my moral line or die, which of us three do
>you think would end up with the "lower animal" short straw?
Well, unless he's a really big Staffordshire terrier, I'd say the
decision was easy. ;-)
More seriously though I had the experience a few years ago of having
rescued a terrific cat from the street. A white cat. One of the most
loving and friendly I had ever seen. My then lady friend picked it up
and brought it back. We tried to find it a home. A guy came and said he
wanted it for his daughter. We later discovered he had no daughter and
that he had killed and eaten it. It takes a certain kind of myopia (not
to mention a certain kind of scumbag) NOT to see an animal's capacity
for feeling and treat it as a snack on legs.
I would not be averse to giving our resident Ei Ei O loony that guy's
address.
Gary
IMEL
other product that comes from an animal.
Ilana
Dstrbd042 <dstr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980928200656...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
cine...@hknet.com
>
> I'll put out your eyes, and SKULLFUCK YOU BOY!
The line is: ... *or I will tear out your eyes and skullfuck you!! Now
get down on your knees and choke yourself.*
(As writers we are allowed to be pedantic about such things).
And you are right, it IS an extremely powerful scene, often
imitated but never to such effect.
derek
cine...@hknet.com
>
> In the United Kingdom the position is that it is illegal
> to possess any human body parts unless you are licensed
> to do so.
>
> A sculptor was recently prosecuted here because he
> obtained human bones from a morgue and used them in his
> sculptures.
How does this apply, for example, to medical students?
In one's first year of pre-clinical medicine, you are given a
list of books and laboratory items to buy, and that list includes
*one set of bones*; med students usually buy second hand
bones from older students but occasionally need a new set.
Could it be that the sculptor was prosecuted not for having
the bones, but for where and how he obtained them?
derek
Abby
>I am not a vegetarian these days, but to tell you the truth I believe >>that for many of us not being vegetarian is the result of moral >>>>>>>>laziness.
For me, it's the fact that I am the top of the food chain and do just as
many other natural carnivores. Moral laziness? It's simpler than
that. I see beef, my mouth salivates, I eat it. Mmmmmm!
I don't have anything negative to say about vegetarians or vegans. Eat
what you want, eat nothing at all, but don't imply those of us who like
to eat meat are "morally" lazy. There's alot of morality I practice
that takes lots of effort.
-Abby
Abby
>see, it's attitudes like this that make me post as i originally did. to >me, calling any animal a "lower animal" is exactly the disrespect i
>was talking about. who the fuck are you to declare yourself better
>than a squirrell? because you're a human being? please.
Yes. Something called evolution allows me to declare myself the winner.
The cleverest gets to eat everything else. Those are the rules.
-Abby
Gary Pollard
>The devoce used in slaughterhouses is hammer shaped and used like a
hammer,
>but it actually drives a projectile into the cow's brain to kill it.
It's
>a lot like the devices you can find in any hardware store, which use
.22
>blanks to drive nails into concrete. More or less similar to a
controlled bullet to the brain, making death more-or-less instantaneous.
That more or less is sometimes considerably less. Here's what happens
here. They shoot the bolt into the cow's brain. It drops like a stone.
It gets a hook driven into its back leg, and then it's put on an
overhead pulley system and pulled along for chopping up.
Problem is, that the bolt does not always work and it's not rare (about
1 in 20) for the cow to start thrashing around while hung up by one back
leg. I almost got my head stoved in while filming there by one cow that
was far from dead. Took a second messy bolt to finish it off.
Gary
IMEL
therefore eating meat is natural and can't really be morally wrong. On the
other hand, when I think of how many animals must had died to feed me over
the course of my life hamburgers don't sound so yummy anymore. Chicken
dansak, on the other hand...
Ilana
Abby <stk...@aol.com> wrote in article <3610E5...@aol.com>...
> Gary wrote:
>
> >I am not a vegetarian these days, but to tell you the truth I believe
>>that for many of us not being vegetarian is the result of moral
>>>>>>>>laziness.
>
Kris S.
> Life Continues, Despite
> Evidence to the Contrary,
>
> Steven
>
Steven -
You are a font of useless information and I'd like to pick your brain.
(hahahaha) I'm working on a murder thriller. My big question is about
taxidermy. Do you know if a taxidermist skins the head (lets say of a
deer) and attaches the pelt to his sculpture or does he use the actual
skull of the animal?
Thanks for your help!
Kris
John McFetridge
>I can relate to the side of the argument that says that animals eat meat,
>therefore eating meat is natural and can't really be morally wrong. On the
>other hand, when I think of how many animals must had died to feed me over
>the course of my life hamburgers don't sound so yummy anymore. Chicken
>dansak, on the other hand...
The difference between a chicken and a plant seems pretty slim.
And, if anything, is getting slimmer all the time. Maybe it was my
wasted youth reading sci fi, but it always seems to me as though
there's a possibility that someday meat won't necessarily mean animal.
Will growing it in a lab make it any more healthy?
Has the laughter died down? Okay, all I can say is you rarely see
overweight vegetarians.
John McF
Alan Brooks
For those of you who think (we) vegetarians are whackos, I present:
1) Wily Brooks (no relation), the self-declared "Breatharian", who
toured college campuses in the early 80's. Wily, a 6'3" 120lb. male,
declared that all solid and liquid mattter were pollutants to the human
body and that the nutrients needed for life were in the air we
breathed. He hung around Boulder for a few weeks each summer in '81 and
'82 and was never seen eating or drinking anything.
2) The Jains - a religious group in India that forsake just about
everything. They wear no clothes and have people sweep the ground in
front of them wherever they go so they won't have the soul of an
accidentally crushed ant weighing down their karma. All they eat is
"the three gifts of the cow", meaning milk, cow urine and cow shit.
(Why the gaseous emmission of cows is not the fourth gift I do not
know). The majority of Jains do not belong to this radical sect by the
way, and are in general very nice, highly educated people living mostly
in the Indian states of Gujarat and Rajastan.
On the topic of skulls: in parts of the Austrian Alps, after a body has
been buried for some time it is dug up and the skull is cleaned, painted
with red roses and green trailing vines, and mounted either on top of
the gravestone or in a special niche inside the gravestone. Graveyards
full of these old, painted skulls are quite beautiful. I've only seen
this in the mountain villages southeast of Salzburg, so I don't know if
it's a widespread practice.
Just thought I'd put a little into the denominator of the signal/noise
ratio this morning.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A schmuck with an Underwood
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Note: there is no Tofuspongiformencephylitis.
Gary Pollard
>On 29 Sep 1998 14:08:43 GMT, "IMEL" <im...@alilana.clara.net> wrote:
>
>>I can relate to the side of the argument that says that animals eat
meat,
>>therefore eating meat is natural and can't really be morally wrong. On
the
>>other hand, when I think of how many animals must had died to feed me
over
>>the course of my life hamburgers don't sound so yummy anymore. Chicken
>>dansak, on the other hand...
>
>The difference between a chicken and a plant seems pretty slim.
Not to chickens
Gary
Gary Pollard
believe
>>>that for many of us not being vegetarian is the result of moral
>>>>>>>>>laziness.
>>
as
>> many other natural carnivores. Moral laziness? It's simpler than
>> that. I see beef, my mouth salivates, I eat it. Mmmmmm!
There is no food chain. There is a food cycle. And even worms'll beat ya
in the end unless you go for cremation.
It's Victorian-era arrogance (and a hopelessly outdated awareness of the
ecological cycle) to claim we are top of the food "chain". Find yourself
in a lion's environment alone and you might be surprised who is likely
to eat whom.
Judging by your moral stance towards achieving a blance between your
wants versus the right to existence of animals you have no reason not to
feel "I see fur, I want it. To hell with the animal that's wearing it
right now."
>> I don't have anything negative to say about vegetarians or vegans.
Eat
>> what you want, eat nothing at all, but don't imply those of us who
like
>> to eat meat are "morally" lazy. There's alot of morality I practice
>> that takes lots of effort.
Of course, if you weren't still presumably smarting over another thread,
you might have read my post more carefully.
"FOR MANY OF US not being vegetarian is the result of moral laziness."
Sometimes morally lazy or sometimes morally myopic. (Wo)Man's
opportunist treatment of animals cannot be justified rationally.
The most you can claim to justify this is "might makes right", something
I assume you strenuously resist where entirely human relations are
concerned.
Gary
Gary Pollard
>I can relate to the side of the argument that says that animals eat
meat,
>therefore eating meat is natural and can't really be morally wrong.
The problem I have with that is that this would be the ONLY area in
which we would claim that something could not be morally wrong because
animals do it. Animals copulate with their brothers and sisters too.
Gary
L
thanks for your posts on this topic. they are excellent,
well-informed, and unlike mine, not reactionary. i've agreed with
just about everything you've said.
>Well, unless he's a really big Staffordshire terrier, I'd say the
>decision was easy. ;-)
i wouldn't bet on it. he weighs 80 lbs. Staffordshire's are the
strongest dog in their weight class. Pitbulls are their LITTLE
brothers.
L.
L
>I can relate to the side of the argument that says that animals eat meat,
>therefore eating meat is natural and can't really be morally wrong. On the
>other hand, when I think of how many animals must had died to feed me over
>the course of my life hamburgers don't sound so yummy anymore. Chicken
>dansak, on the other hand...
>
>Ilana
i've always found it curious that meat eaters use the defense/excuse /
whatever you want to call it, that because non-human animals eat meat
i am therefore justified. but these same people do not look to the
"lover" animals for examples of how to behave elsewhere in their
lives. do you choose your sex partner by grabbing the first person you
see when the urge hits you? etc etc etc.
L.
Abby
> >Abby <stk...@aol.com> wrote in article <3610E5...@aol.com>...
> >> Gary wrote:
> >>
> >> >I am not a vegetarian these days, but to tell you the truth I
> believe
> >>>that for many of us not being vegetarian is the result of moral
> >>>>>>>>>laziness.
> >>
> >> For me, it's the fact that I am the top of the food chain and do just
> as
> >> many other natural carnivores. Moral laziness? It's simpler than
> >> that. I see beef, my mouth salivates, I eat it. Mmmmmm!
>
> There is no food chain. There is a food cycle. And even worms'll beat ya
> in the end unless you go for cremation.
Actually I have opted for cremation just to avoid that (yuck). Insects
proliferate in the end due to sheer numbers and short life spans which
allow for a larger frequency of mutation/adaptation. And they will
probably inherity the Earth for this reason. That is, of course, provided
we will someday blow ourselves up (which I fully expect we will).
However, they will never carry me off as dinner and will never squash me
underfoot.
> It's Victorian-era arrogance (and a hopelessly outdated awareness of the
> ecological cycle) to claim we are top of the food "chain". Find yourself
> in a lion's environment alone and you might be surprised who is likely
> to eat whom.
If I have a gun, due to my being the most advanced evolutionary creature,
I'd say I am likely to eat the lion.
> Judging by your moral stance towards achieving a blance between your
> wants versus the right to existence of animals you have no reason not to
> feel "I see fur, I want it. To hell with the animal that's wearing it
> right now."
That's a difficult issue. For some reason I would never buy a seal or
leopard skin coat, but a mink or leather coat I have no problem with. I
haven't figured this one out yet.
>> I don't have anything negative to say about vegetarians or vegans. Eat
> >> what you want, eat nothing at all, but don't imply those of us who
> like
> >> to eat meat are "morally" lazy. There's alot of morality I practice
> >> that takes lots of effort.
>
> Of course, if you weren't still presumably smarting over another thread,
> you might have read my post more carefully. "FOR MANY OF US not being
> vegetarian is the result of moral laziness."
>
Yes, and I said "FOR ME, it's the fact..."
"Smarting"????? Over what? Because I gave up on your endless
hair-splitting and microscopic detailing? I simply have no time to
dissertize the way you do.
>Sometimes morally lazy or sometimes morally myopic. (Wo)Man's
>opportunist treatment of animals cannot be justified rationally.
I did justify it. If it's not rational to you, oh well.
>The most you can claim to justify this is "might makes right", something
>I assume you strenuously resist where entirely human relations are
>concerned.
Thanks for the warning. It isn't about "might," it's about smarts. Don't
twist words... again.
-Abby
L
you're deluding yourself. we put you and my dog in a ring and i think
that you will very quickly call for a ref to change your beloved
rules.
L.
IMEL
I supposed it's not a very good idea. If it doesn't lead to procreation,
however, what's really wrong with it if everyone is consenting? I mean
besides it being icky?
Is your argument is that as humans we have a sense of morality as well as
an
awareness of death in a way that animals don't? Since we know
that if we eat an animal we are complicit in it's death, as opposed to a
lion or snake who doesn't have this knowledge, does that mean we should
abstain from eating animals? Or that since we can survive without eating
animals we should survive without eating animals?
Ilana
Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote in article
<6uqrg4$bk...@news.asiaonline.net>...
> IMEL wrote in message <01bdebb0$dc2007a0$LocalHost@default>...
> >I can relate to the side of the argument that says that animals eat
> meat,
> >therefore eating meat is natural and can't really be morally wrong.
>
IMEL
our mates along similar lines to animals. We tell ourselves that we are
fully aware of why we chose particular lovers, but we're not. If you're
talking about basic, gut level panty wetting attraction to another person
most of the causes are subconscious or biological. As we are human beings
and act through a process that combines instinct and rational decision
making, as opposed to animals who act purely upon instinct, we tend to wait
a bit before jumping on someone's bones. Unless, of course, your a British
female in Ibiza, that is.
Ilana
L <L...@bsfetching.com> wrote in article <36110201...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
> On 29 Sep 1998 14:08:43 GMT, "IMEL" <im...@alilana.clara.net> wrote:
>
> >I can relate to the side of the argument that says that animals eat
meat,
Dean Hart
I must confess Dean that I am a tad disappointed in you here. I had notAnd I hope you STILL know, Gary, that I would NEVER feel that
previously considered you as one of those people for whom the term
"trolling" means "expressing a view different from mine."
way. I try quite hard to respect everyone's opinion, and even try to
understand opinions that differ from mine. Even if said opinions might
be (in my own opinion) seriously skewed and bizarre. And I
have NEVER considered YOUR opinions to be skewed OR
bizarre...well almost never.
So I guess I need to start by saying, I apologize for what I said, and
the manner in which I said it--though my intent was NOT as you
inferred it to be. (Or rather, as you IMPLIED you INFERRED it
to be--that make any sense at all?) When I accused you of trolling,
I
did not do so to attack you. I really was sort of half-jesting,
because
unfortunately I had misread YOUR intent in your brief previous
message to me.
In that message you wrote:
If you're argument and blurring of that line applies to why vegetarians shouldn't eat plants it also gives cause to wonder why meat-eaters shouldn't eat people.
I thought you were making a slight joke--having a light poke at
the philosophy I had expounded. Not that I took offense at
reading your words. I just thought you were being a bit frivolous
Apparently you were not.
So by accusing you of "trolling" for me, I meant I had assumed
you were trying to get a "gentle" rise out of me. Had I believed
for a moment that your words were typed in complete earnest,
I NEVER would have teased back.
Forgive me for the misunderstanding.
Now on to the rest of your reply...
Frankly I think that if you put a pig, suffering from many common pigI agree with you completely.
ailments in front of most of us, and a human corpse suffering from no
ailment other than the heart disease that had killed it, few would
choose to roast the meat from our own species.
...much of this is post-facto rationalisation. We like steak and so we attempt to justify the eating of beef.
I agree that often, that CAN be the position and the motivation
behind the position. But speaking for myself personally, no,
that
is NOT my rationalization.
Sorry, but this is not true. Just as mad cow prions MAY not spreadI agree. But I would still contend that the odds are more in favor
through most of the body, many human diseases, even if they can kill
you, are localised in effect.
of one contracting a disease by ingesting a like species than by
devouring an unlike species.
I do not really believe that health is the issue. For it to be so, we'dHere I agree most of all. But I was aiming my discourse at YOU.
have to be socialised into it, and I believe the taboo lies deeper than
socialisation.
Not presenting a general thesis on the disadvantages of cannibalism.
You had asked me for my opinion and I had stated it, then
said, "You know as well as I do..." You ALWAYS support
your positions with facts. I was trying to present facts, not just
paint an abstract portrait of an obtuse cultural stance, or of
an even more intangible religious/spiritual view. (I hope you take
the personal part of this paragraph as a compliment. It was meant
that way.)
There ARE, by the way, plenty of animals that do eatActually, a VERY good point. And one that even undermines
their own species - even chimps have been observed being cannibalistic.
There isn't that much evidence that these things constitute a biological
disadvantage.
my attempt to have a fact-firm foundation.
Again, your thesis is somewhat confused by the fact that we DO eat pig,Ah, true. But see, the Jews were The Chosen people. God didn't
and that those outside of the Judaic tradition have long done so,
care if everybody else died. (IT'S A JOKE, PEOPLE!)
And we do eat any number of things that we know have theStop! "I was yours at hello!"
power kill us. Need I remind you of Japanese Fugu eaters?
There are contradictions in most moral stances, but for me the dividingA compassionately wise belief. I, however, being exceptionally
line may be about sentience. I believe that once a being has a central
nervous system and a brain it is pretty damned sentient. Once an animal
shies away from pain and fears death, and many clearly do, there is
not - to me - a convincing argument against it being sentient.
weird, take it even one step further. I'm not certain sentience is
dependent upon a central nervous system. I'm not even certain it
is dependent upon the biological description of life. Again, alluding
to my suggestion in an earlier post of mine that some philosophies
believe life even abides in minerals.
For me,Wow. Deadly serious here. This REALLY blew me away.
eating a cow is not as bad as eating snails because if I eat a portion
of snails I take six lives, if I eat beef I take a portion of one.
I, regrettably to say, have never even contemplated that thought.
And I had considered myself as having viewed EVERY possible angle
of the subject. (Ah, assumptions--gotta love 'em.) Again, WOW.
And it is such an OBVIOUS consideration too!
Indeed--do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the
few...or does it even matter in this context? I'll be a while on this
one, Mr. Pollard.
I like the taste of snails, but I no longer eat them.I said WEIRD, not WACKY. And I LOVE snails too.
(And you thought YOU were wacky.)
And if I end up not eating snails anymore because of this, Gary,
I'm really going to be pissed at you! And by the way, you
said "six lives" before when referring to a portion of snails.
Have you EVER felt that to be a proper portion? I sure haven't.
10-12 would be much better--at the very least, eight.
My questions to you were genuine ones, and were provoked in thought byThank you for the reference. I have not read the work. I will
philosopher Mary Midgley's "Why Animals Matter"...
obtain it and do so.
It is a little disappointing that while your questions to theAgain, my utmost apologizes. It was a misunderstanding of your intent.
previous posters are considered by you totally appropriate, my questions
to you are - in your view - otherwise.
I stand corrected.
I've explained above why I don't think the health aspect is aYou mean there's more?!!!
particularly convincing one, so let's look at the issue of sentience and
awareness.
(In a slaughterhouse)...I KNOW that animals there are aware ofAgree and agree--completely!
coming death and afraid of it. I don't even believe
that the fish wriggling on a hook is unaware of what
is coming.
Any animal that does not feel pain dies. It would not survive one day.Some do. I don't. L doesn't. And it sounds as if you don't either.
Ergo, all animals that life longer than a day - in my view - experience
pain, discomfort, and would rather not die given the chance.So let's say that we justify it because we feel the quality of animals'
consciousness or sentience is not up to ours.
Then what happens when we confront the human who is as brain dead as aThe brain-dead human can be a conundrum. The retarded human poses
vegetable or who has a lower IQ or less awareness of environment than a
healthy cow.
NO confusion for ME. As I've said before, I view all as equal--the
intelligent human, the cow, the retarded human...equal, just different.
None has a greater or lesser value than another.
I believe that most of our rationales for meat-eating are aboutI wish I could judge that to be true, Gary. I fear it is not. I would
selfishness. Nothing more noble than that.
find mere SELFISHNESS to be a much more noble excuse than
the reality that I believe it to be: humans (most) place themselves
above ALL other life and non-life. There is some selfishness
inherent in that, but mostly it is blatant ARROGANCE! An
extreme species chauvinism.
I maintain the roots to that attitude lie in a genetic survival
mechanism. It probably exists in all species--preference
toward one's own kind--the desire to avoid extinction.
But we, as thinking beings with awareness of self,
have extrapolated that "instinct" into certain religious
beliefs and, I believe, an equally dangerous general
arrogance and righteousness.
Don't get me wrong. If I were in a burning house and I only
had time to get out an old lady or a young puppy, I would
choose the old lady. Why? Because I also hold certain
genetically inspired chauvinisms. But that does NOT mean
I value the old lady's life more than the puppy's. Sometimes
life presents challenging choices. Hopefully, I won't ever
have to make a decision like that. But that IS the way
I would decide. No doubt about it.
For myself, I acknowledge a moral laziness that allows me to eat meat, but there is a kind of justification of it. We allow these animals to live and have awareness so that we may eat them. Having seen how humanity treats species it does NOT consider useful to it I think that these awarenesses ONLY exist because we are selfish. I take the slightly Buddhist view that awareness is the universe regarding itself.
Wise. Commendable. And regarding your own meat-eating
laziness...
It was a Buddhist monk that once told me not to worry too
greatly about altering my diet and my lifestyle into one of
perfection overnight. He said that insisting on
perfection at the journey's beginning, guaranteed that the
journey would NEVER be completed...or even begun. (And
nope, I'm not Buddhist. I just love exchanges with people
who have vivid--even hazy--philosophies.)
Where I DO draw the line is that I say that even if we must kill animalsABSOLUTELY!
it is a denigration of our humanity if we kill them in ways that are
painful or needlessly distressing. And, even if we kill animals for
meat, there is NEVER any reason to make them live lives of suffering.
For that reason I don't eat veal, avoid eggs from battery chickens,As do I. And the frustrating thing is I used to LOVE veal. But
and - indeed - avoid battery chickens wherever I can.
I haven't had any for...gosh, at least fifteen years--maybe more.
(And someday, I may now hold that same longing for snails, thanks
to you!--Ah JEEZ! I just thought about calamari. Those squid are
pretty small. You got to eat a lot of them. And clams! And...
A pox on you, Pollard!)
I have madePeople do not SEE until they are ready to LOOK. And...to
documentaries reflecting the questions our treatment of animals raise
(and been hypocritically lambasted for them "How dare you show a
slaughterhouse on TV while we're eating our dinner."
everything there is a season.
I don't live comfortably with it, and IWhich is one of the many reasons I enjoy exchanges with you.
don't take it lightly.
Thanks Gary. I hope we both have gotten each others intents
correct in this one.
Dean
Skip Press
<gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>IMEL wrote in message <01bdebb0$dc2007a0$LocalHost@default>...
>>I can relate to the side of the argument that says that animals eat meat,
>>therefore eating meat is natural and can't really be morally wrong.
>
>The problem I have with that is that this would be the ONLY area in
>which we would claim that something could not be morally wrong because
>animals do it. Animals copulate with their brothers and sisters too.
Regarding your last sentence, Gary, you need to visit Arkansas, close to
where Bill Clinton was born.
Skip Press
<al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>This thread should be retitled "The Way Of All Flesh".
More like The Way of All MWS Threads. Started out as someone wanted a
human skull and now it's a debate about vegetarianism!
>For those of you who think (we) vegetarians are whackos, I present:
>
>1) Wily Brooks (no relation), the self-declared "Breatharian", who
>toured college campuses in the early 80's. Wily, a 6'3" 120lb. male,
>declared that all solid and liquid mattter were pollutants to the human
>body and that the nutrients needed for life were in the air we
>breathed. He hung around Boulder for a few weeks each summer in '81 and
>'82 and was never seen eating or drinking anything.
Yeah, and he was an amazing bullshit artist. I met people in Malibu who
saw him eating Milky Ways and he's admitted to eating all sorts of things,
including sandwiches. Since he now lives in Seattle, he's probably also
scarfing the cappucino at Starbucks.
>2) The Jains - a religious group in India that forsake just about
>everything. They wear no clothes and have people sweep the ground in
>front of them wherever they go so they won't have the soul of an
>accidentally crushed ant weighing down their karma. All they eat is
>"the three gifts of the cow", meaning milk, cow urine and cow shit.
>(Why the gaseous emmission of cows is not the fourth gift I do not
>know). The majority of Jains do not belong to this radical sect by the
>way, and are in general very nice, highly educated people living mostly
>in the Indian states of Gujarat and Rajastan.
The eat cowshit and cowpiss? Man, those guys would do well in Texas.
Somebody tell George W. Bush (the governor)!
>On the topic of skulls: in parts of the Austrian Alps, after a body has
>been buried for some time it is dug up and the skull is cleaned, painted
>with red roses and green trailing vines, and mounted either on top of
>the gravestone or in a special niche inside the gravestone. Graveyards
>full of these old, painted skulls are quite beautiful. I've only seen
>this in the mountain villages southeast of Salzburg, so I don't know if
>it's a widespread practice.
So that's why that guy wanted that skull! He was nostalgic for the
Austrian Alps. I'd be a little wary of where skulls in Austria came from,
frankly.
Richard Milton
>the bones, but for where and how he obtained them?
No he was prosecuted for possession. I recall the case
because it related to a story I was writing at the time
so I clipped the newspapers.
I don't know about students and other bona fide
workers. I can only assume that either they are licensed
by virtue of signing on their course or police turn a
blind eye if the motive is a humanitarian one.
(I think the laws came about originally because of a
couple of entreprenurial Scotsmen called Burke and
Hare. Come to think of it their best customer was
Surgeon Knox!)
Richard
L
>> yeah, well a few generations ago they probably held slaves, too. i'm
>> not of the belief that the actions of my ancestors decide the actions
>> i'm gonna take. you wanna live that way you go right ahead.
>>
>
>Well, Lincoln, I do not believe that you can be blamed! If someone, like
>me self, took advantage of your scriptright software and they called you
>a racist? Would that make me feel better? .... :-)
you completely lost me on that one, sag. i wasn't calling anyone a
racist, i was merely pointing out that liberties taken in the past do
not justify those taken today.
L.
Abby
L wrote:
Not if I have a weapon which my evolutionarily developed brain has afforded me the wisdom to create. And they're not "my beloved"rules, they
just are.
L
<al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>2) The Jains - a religious group in India that forsake just about
>everything. They wear no clothes and have people sweep the ground in
>front of them wherever they go so they won't have the soul of an
>accidentally crushed ant weighing down their karma. All they eat is
>"the three gifts of the cow", meaning milk, cow urine and cow shit.
i'm curious as to where you did your research. i've read about jainism
and have NEVER heard anything about the cow stuff you mention.
jains are vegetarians and are opposed to war (they do not bear arms).
they live by these five commandments, known as the Five Commandments
of the Soul:
1. do not kill any living thing; do not hurt or kill any living thing
by deed, thought, or word--even in self defense.
2. do not steal.
3. do not lie.
4. do not live an unchaste life. do not become intoxicated.
5. do not covet or desire anything.
the basic beliefs of the jains are that enlightenment comes from self
denial and charity.
the only thing in your post that seems to be true to my research is
that they do not wish to have the souls of others on their heads. but
a jain would not have someone sweep ants out from his/her path as that
may kill the ant by their consent. jains cannot be farmers (because
tilling the ground can kill worms) or fishermen.
the number of jains living today are few. approx 1.5 million live in
india today and the numbers are dwindling.
here's a quote from Joseph Gaer which i think should be mentioned:
"They do not pray for wealth or health, they do not pray for honor in
the eyes of men or for success in their professions... the Jainist
beliefs in generosity, humility, and personal responsibility for all
in need, and dedication to peace can certainly inspire the ethical
aspirant in any society."
and here are some of the sayings of Jainism:
"all things are eternal by their very nature"
"knowing the truth, one should live up to it"
"a blind man, though he may carry a light, still does not see"
"he who is carried away by passion will not get very far"
"he who knows the truth is kind to all his fellow creatures"
"if you believe the cow dung thing or cow urine thing, you're a fool"
okay, i made the last one up. but i'd still like to know your source.
L.
L
>
>Not if I have a weapon which my evolutionarily developed brain has afforded me the wisdom to create. And they're not "my beloved"rules, they
>just are.
i am incapable of creating a rifle on my own. by your train of logic
the person capable of crafting one from scratch has the right to kill
me with it. i think closer to what you believe is that because you can
walk into a store and purchase a rifle, you have the right to use it.
but then, i don't want to put words in your mouth.
L.
Alan Brooks
Hi L,
It wasn't research as much as it was a sort of intense hanging out. My
sources are a number of tall, naked men that I spoke to while their
sweepers waited for them on the streets of Udaipur, in Rajastan. True,
they aren't normally exhibitionists, but stay in their own private
community where they don't have to constantly explain themselves. I
caught them during a religious celebration where they had come into town
to participate in a parade with members of other religions.
So, 1) I might be a fool as you suggest, 2) the men may have simply lied
to me for the sake of the excellent humor value, 3) maybe the piss/shit
are microscopic token amounts, 4) I'm no religious expert, but
5) I try to stick to what I've seen, not what I've read.
Namaste,
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A schmuck with an Underwood
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. If God didn't want us to eat animals, why'd he make them out of
meat? (I'm a vegetarian too, I just find that very funny).
Abby
L wrote:
Good, because that's not even close.
I am talking about the species as a whole. If you are so quick to credit animals with the talents of hunting and defending themselves, why not
humans? Is not a superior brain just as credible as long teeth and fast legs?
B.J. West
> see, it's attitudes like this that make me post as i originally did.
> to me, calling any animal a "lower animal" is exactly the disrespect i
> was talking about. who the fuck are you to declare yourself better
> than a squirrell? because you're a human being? please.
Oh, please, L. I am perfectly happy to go up against that squirrel for Higher
Animal status on any criterion you wish to propose. If you are talking about the
food chain, bring the little varmint on. If he can take me out and eat me, I hand
the crown to him with best wishes. Shall we talk about the power to understand
one's environment? OK. Let the little bugger tell me about the clouds, much less
the stars. Shall we talk about sheer complex evolution? I'll gladly donate some
DNA to lay down beside the furry beast's twisted pair any day. Adaptability?
Ability to transform their surroundings? Hell, I can eat more nuts that the little
vermin. Name *one* measure by which any random human being is not clearly superior
to any random squirrel, except possibly cool fluffy tail.
Does this mean I don't respect a squirrel's right to exist? Not for a second. I
think that every organism has it's function in the biosphere, and that we, as
humans, should not infringe on that place needlessly.
But until Mr. Squirrel can stand up and argue with me on human's higher position
in the grand scheme of things, I think we win by default.
Beej
----------
B.J. West - Art Direction, Design, Animation
http://www.strafe.com/bj
----------
Strafe's Guide to Streetspeak!
http://www.strafe.com
----------
"Writing is easy. All you do is sit staring at a blank sheet
of paper until the drops of blood form on your forehead."
- Gene Fowler
B.J. West
> IMEL wrote in message <01bdebb0$dc2007a0$LocalHost@default>...
> >I can relate to the side of the argument that says that animals eat
> meat,
> >therefore eating meat is natural and can't really be morally wrong.
>
> The problem I have with that is that this would be the ONLY area in
> which we would claim that something could not be morally wrong because
> animals do it. Animals copulate with their brothers and sisters too.
"Children, I'm not gonna touch that one with a twenty foot pole..."
B.J. West
> John McFetridge wrote in message <3610ee8d...@news.ican.net>...
> >The difference between a chicken and a plant seems pretty slim.
>
> Not to chickens
Gary, have you ever spent time around chickens? I defy you to produce one that
can demonstrate any cognizant recognition between a fern and its mother, or even
a fern and its own reflection. Chickens are ambulatory, fleshy plants -- at
best.
Beej
L
> Is not a superior brain just as credible as long teeth and fast legs?
being credible does not make them equal. you claim a superior brain
entitles you to the same "freedoms" in diet. how exactly is your brain
superior? because you can use it to comfort yourself when you say to
yourself that you have the "right" to kill beings you determine your
intellectual inferiors?
you claim to be on a higher plain (mentally) than those you eat--but
you're certainly not using your smarts (diet-wise) in any way that
supports your argument. your superior intellect is certainly not being
used to understand or communcation compassion or empathy--two
qualities which i associate with superior intellect.
and has it not occured to you that the way you're measuring your
"superior brain" is in a way that means nothing to both parties (you
AND non-human animals). without referring to inventions or conventions
that suit only the human species, how are we superior to non-human
animals? does the lion not posess all of the mental skills that it
needs to continue living in its environment? what is it lacking,
mentally, that you feel human beings posess? the ability to waste the
earth's resources? the need to kill more than it needs to survive? to
be able to put a fence around something and call it your own?
look, this is frustrating. we obviously believe two COMPLETELY
different things. perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
L.
L
<al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>
>So, 1) I might be a fool as you suggest, 2) the men may have simply lied
>to me for the sake of the excellent humor value,
i'd bet on number 2.
>3) maybe the piss/shit
>are microscopic token amounts, 4) I'm no religious expert, but
>
>5) I try to stick to what I've seen, not what I've read.
then i'm sure you'll agree with me that both approaches have ways of
getting one into trouble.
L.
Abby
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:55:35 -0500, Abby <stk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Is not a superior brain just as credible as long teeth and fast legs?
>
> being credible does not make them equal.
I said "just as credible" which does imply equality.
> you claim a superior brain
> entitles you to the same "freedoms" in diet. how exactly is your brain
> superior? because you can use it to comfort yourself when you say to
> yourself that you have the "right" to kill beings you determine your
> intellectual inferiors?
It is superior by any biologcal, philosophical, or psychological ruler
you care to produce. Come on L, you are really reaching here. I'll
give in that yes, we shouldn't mindlessly slaughter animals for sport or
fun or cruelty. But to suggest our brains are even remotely comparable
to most animals' is just ridiculous.
> you claim to be on a higher plain (mentally) than those you eat--but
> you're certainly not using your smarts (diet-wise) in any way that
> supports your argument. your superior intellect is certainly not being
> used to understand or communcation compassion or empathy--two
> qualities which i associate with superior intellect.
I have loads of empathy and compassion, even for non-humans. Honestly,
except for bugs, I've never hurt anything. But food/sustenance is
another story. Sorry, but in that case, I get to use my superior
intellect to survive. I know it's possible to survive without eating
meat, but I LIKE IT. I didn't tell myself to like it - my glands
naturally salivate when I smell a steak roasting. That is a natural
impulse. Eating is a natural impulse. Sex is a natural impulse. Etc.
etc.
If animals have an equally developed intellect, as you suggest, let's
see one carnivore pass up a side of beef for a carrot stick.
> and has it not occured to you that the way you're measuring your
> "superior brain" is in a way that means nothing to both parties (you
> AND non-human animals). without referring to inventions or conventions
> that suit only the human species, how are we superior to non-human
> animals?
But it's just those inventions that make us superior.
> does the lion not posess all of the mental skills that it
> needs to continue living in its environment?
Yes, but it doesn't posess the intellect to rule over humans, who have a
greater intellect that allows them to choose to live anywhere.
> what is it lacking,
> mentally, that you feel human beings posess?
That would take so much of time to answer, I can't even begin.
> the ability to waste the
> earth's resources? the need to kill more than it needs to survive? to
> be able to put a fence around something and call it your own?
Oh, pul-eeze. No one said we haven't made mistakes but come on...
> look, this is frustrating. we obviously believe two COMPLETELY
> different things. perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
OK, although I rather enjoyed the debate. Ciao...
-Abby
L
<bjw...@postlinear.SPAMSUX.com> wrote:
>Name *one* measure by which any random human being is not clearly superior
>to any random squirrel, except possibly cool fluffy tail.
i don't know what you mean by superior? a higher iq? better score on
the SAT? which one i would rather have lunch in the park with? i mean,
i prefer the little squirrel in my front yard over hitler--i prefer my
mom over a dog i've never met. but i know that's not what you mean.
(or do i?) here, let me put it like this:
A
===
1. i don't believe in god
2. the squirrel exists for some purpose.
or
B
===
1. i don't believe in god
2. the squirrel does not have a purpose
whichever one i choose on any given day, i have to put myself into the
equation. i don't think the squirrel can exist in A while i exist in
B. or vice versa. acknowledging this, in my book, makes us equal. i
don't give a rat's ass if you can tell me why we have seasons or the
ingredients in the ultimate sandwich. why should i? it's only relevant
if i feel it necessary to prove I'M superior. which i do not.
(to me, flesh eaters put themselves in A and non-human animals in B.
or at least, when i was a flesh eater, that's what i did.)
>Does this mean I don't respect a squirrel's right to exist?
perhaps not to you, but it certainly seemed that way coming from the
original poster--to which i was responding:
[re: saving the squirrels]
>> it was a cruel waste of time and energy directed at lower
>>animals.
do you not agree that that position didn't respect the squirrel's
right to exist? (the original poster was commenting that there were
hungry people who would have loved squirrel stew.)
>Not for a second. I
>think that every organism has it's function in the biosphere, and that we, as
>humans, should not infringe on that place needlessly.
granted. this is simply a more elegant way of saying what i said
above. i think.
>But until Mr. Squirrel can stand up and argue with me on human's higher position
>in the grand scheme of things, I think we win by default.
and this is where we disagree. well, more acurately, this is where i
press my hands against my forehead and try and figure out what the
hell you're talking about: what have you won? to me, in "the grand
scheme of things" is about the only place that we have lost.
L.
Dstrbd042
>
>>I am not a vegetarian these days, but to tell you the truth I believe >>that
>for many of us not being vegetarian is the result of moral >>>>>>>>laziness.
>
If we weren't supposed to eat meat...
Dental X-Rays would more closely resemble those of a cow...
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
L
>meat, but I LIKE IT.
this has been my belief from the start. but like i said, i don't want
to put words in your mouth.
L.
Dstrbd042
>do you choose your sex partner by grabbing the first person you
>see when the urge hits you? etc etc etc.
>
Well, yes...
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
"Bitch pressin charges?
Ya I get that a lot..."
Abby
Aaaaannddd.....
That's it? I put those words in my own mouth. Is that supposed to be
shameful? Ha!
If you were braver and had more of a point, you'd quote the whole post,
not 1% of it.
B.J. West
> More speciesism. Humans are better at some things, not at others.
> Suppose we were to say the fastest or the strongest get to eat
> everything else. Be screwed wouldn't we?
The base reality here is that we *can* decide. Obviously, if a cheetah or tiger
is given the opportunity to decide who eats and who doesn't, they'll choose
*themselves* every time, and that is precisely as it should be. The fact that
*we* get to make that decision more often than not *proves* humankind's net
superiority, Q.E.D.
Now, this is not to say that we should exercise that authority recklessly. I am
very seriously opposed to raising animals in vats, to radical deforestation for
the creation of cattle grazing land, and sport hunting. As The Most Powerful
Animal On Earth [tm], we are also saddled with a certain amount of stewardship,
and have to take responsibility for our own actions.
I just object to a *moral* objection to eating meat, rather than simply leaning
toward vegetarianism as part of a more sustainable diet, and let's face it,
better nutrition. Like the song says; "Hitler Was A Vegetarian Too". (Is that
confirmed?)
For the record, I eat a primarily vegetarian diet close to 75 - 80% of the time
(leaning towards Indian and Ethiopian cuisine - yum!), and tear into a nice
bloody filet mignon about once a month.
Gary Pollard
Suppose we were to say the fastest or the strongest get to eat
everything else. Be screwed wouldn't we?
Not only are we "clever". We're supposedly the only animals with ethics
and the ability to live by them.
Gary
Abby wrote in message <3610E7...@aol.com>...
>L wrote in message <36105571...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
>
>>see, it's attitudes like this that make me post as i originally did.
to >me, calling any animal a "lower animal" is exactly the disrespect i
>>was talking about. who the fuck are you to declare yourself better
>>than a squirrell? because you're a human being? please.
>
>Yes. Something called evolution allows me to declare myself the winner.
>The cleverest gets to eat everything else. Those are the rules.
>
>-Abby
Gary Pollard
seeing chickens in a battery farm, their necks permanently crooked
(sometimes their heads totally upside down) from the cramped living
conditions, makes me very aware that they are not so dumb they do not
deserve better treatment. In the end, the ethical treatment of animals
is not about who they are; it's about who WE are.
Gary
B.J. West wrote in message <361144DE...@postlinear.SPAMSUX.com>...
>Gary Pollard wrote:
>
>> John McFetridge wrote in message <3610ee8d...@news.ican.net>...
>> >The difference between a chicken and a plant seems pretty slim.
>>
>> Not to chickens
>
>Gary, have you ever spent time around chickens? I defy you to produce
one that
>can demonstrate any cognizant recognition between a fern and its
mother, or even
>a fern and its own reflection. Chickens are ambulatory, fleshy
plants -- at
>best.
>
>Beej
>
Gary Pollard
an entirely new one to me.
Gary
L wrote in message <361120bd...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
Gary Pollard
>>Sometimes morally lazy or sometimes morally myopic. (Wo)Man's
>>opportunist treatment of animals cannot be justified rationally.
>
>I did justify it. If it's not rational to you, oh well.
Rationality is or isn't. It is not subjective. Or are you invoking
"women's ways of knowing"?
>>The most you can claim to justify this is "might makes right",
something
>>I assume you strenuously resist where entirely human relations are
>>concerned.
>Thanks for the warning. It isn't about "might," it's about smarts.
Don't
>twist words... again.
In your usage "smarts" IS "might". Remember your own gun example.
Gary
Gary Pollard
>i wouldn't bet on it. he weighs 80 lbs. Staffordshire's are the
>strongest dog in their weight class. Pitbulls are their LITTLE
>brothers.
>
No. What I meant was the opposite of what you inferred. The biggest one
will provide more food ;-)
Gary
Gary Pollard
kill you they have the moral right to eat you or do whatever the hell
else they like.
Gary
Gary Pollard wrote in message <6urlu5$bk...@news.asiaonline.net>...
sagit...@my-dejanews.com
was why I was smiling. We know that past liberties, do not,
condone or justify present times. Nuff respect!
Peace,
The sag
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Dstrbd042
>The cleverest gets to eat everything else. Those are the rules.
>
Notice we don't eat dolphins.
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
Humans always thought they were smarter than the dolphins because they had
accomplished so much; the wheel, New York, Wars, etc...while all the dolphins
had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.
The dolphins always assumed they were smarter than people for precisely the
same reasons.
(not an exact quote...from memory)
Dstrbd042
>they live by these five commandments, known as the Five Commandments
>of the Soul:
>
>1. do not kill any living thing; do not hurt or kill any living thing
>by deed, thought, or word--even in self defense.
>
>2. do not steal.
>
>3. do not lie.
>
>4. do not live an unchaste life. do not become intoxicated.
>5. do not covet or desire anything.
HEYHEYHEY WAAAAAIIIIIT just one cotton pickin minute here...
Those cheaters!
Number four looks distinctly like TWOOO commandments to me....
Hey, maybe you can just choose 5 of the six to follow...
I already know which one would be out for me.
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
Gary Pollard
>
>> i am incapable of creating a rifle on my own. by your train of logic
>> the person capable of crafting one from scratch has the right to kill
>> me with it. i think closer to what you believe is that because you
can
>> walk into a store and purchase a rifle, you have the right to use it.
>> but then, i don't want to put words in your mouth.
>
>Good, because that's not even close.
>I am talking about the species as a whole. If you are so quick to
credit animals with the talents of hunting and defending themselves,
why not
fast legs?
Which is why your particular argument is known as "speciesism".
And it is false logic.
Here's an example of why. White people invent an IQ test. They give the
IQ test to black people. Hey. Guess what? Black people are not so bright
according to that IQ test. Therefore white people must have more moral
rights. They are certainly brighter.
Or Civilization A thinks that its form of art proves its moral and
aesthetic superiority. Civilization B as a quite different series of
aesthetic criteria. Therefore Civilization A assumes it must have a more
highly developed sense of moral rights and aesthetic judgement and
therefore has the right to destroy or denigrate culture B.
In the first of these instances the division is made on the concept of
"race". In the second on "culture". These are intrinsically no more and
no less apt than your choice of division along species lines.
L's point still stands. The fact that we CAN kill, rape, maim, murder,
abuse and other beings (whether we're talking Vietnamese or sheep) that
are in no position to stop us in no way implies that we have the moral
right to do so.
We claim to be able to make moral and ethical distinctions. In fact we
often claim that THAT is one area where our superiority lies. The
attitude that B dies because A likes how B tastes is hardly a marvellous
example of that faculty.
Gary
Gary Pollard
>Gary Pollard wrote:
>
>> More speciesism. Humans are better at some things, not at others.
>> Suppose we were to say the fastest or the strongest get to eat
>> everything else. Be screwed wouldn't we?
>
or tiger
>is given the opportunity to decide who eats and who doesn't, they'll
choose
>*themselves* every time, and that is precisely as it should be. The
fact that
>*we* get to make that decision more often than not *proves* humankind's
net
>superiority, Q.E.D.
As I said, I don't think our might or our power is relevant to our moral
decisions one way or another.
Ei-ei-o might be ABLE to live out some of his fantasies if he is
stronger than his victims. I do not think that the ability to do so
makes the judgement moral one way or the other. If one race decides to
commit genocide of another, it is not moral to do so because it has the
power to do so. And it makes neither Ei-ei-o or that race superior that
it has the power, other than in terms of MIGHT. And, not being a fan of
John Wayne movies or Rocky philosophy I do not believe that might makes
right.
There are all kinds of ways to judge superiority. An animal perfectly
adapted to survive in its environment is superior to us in that context.
We simply choose the criteria that make us look best. It's self-serving,
but then - as a species - we are self-serving.
>I just object to a *moral* objection to eating meat, rather than simply
leaning
>toward vegetarianism as part of a more sustainable diet, and let's face
it,
>better nutrition. Like the song says; "Hitler Was A Vegetarian Too".
(Is that
>confirmed?)
Hey, Hitler was a heterosexual too. It is equally irrelevant.
And I think the moral/philosophical position that objects to destruction
of animals is a perfectly valid one. In fact I have never seen a
compelling argument made against it on the level to which it has been
sustained by philosophers such as Singer and Midgeley.
Gary
Gary Pollard
question precisely when we have the most power over another species,
group, or person and nothing to fear.
Just as monogamy because you are afraid of AIDS or getting shot by the
spouse is not a moral decision. It's a practical one.
Gary
L
>L wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:07:51 -0600, Abby <stk...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >meat, but I LIKE IT.
>>
>> this has been my belief from the start. but like i said, i don't want
>> to put words in your mouth.
>>
>> L.
>
>Aaaaannddd.....
>That's it? I put those words in my own mouth. Is that supposed to be
>shameful? Ha!
>If you were braver and had more of a point, you'd quote the whole post,
>not 1% of it.
the degree to which i am brave has very little to do with it. i quoted
that (and only that) of your post because i think that that (and only
that) is what your position (or point, as you call it) comes down to.
you do not eat meat because you feel superior to the beings you eat.
you eat meat because you like it. your "superiority" is really just
how you sleep at night.
i like the taste of chicken. but i don't eat it. i think it's immoral.
as i said before, we should just agree to disagree.
L.
Gary Pollard
Dean Hart wrote in message <361107C...@webemail.net>...
I wish I could judge that to be true, Gary. I fear it is not. I would
find mere SELFISHNESS to be a much more noble excuse than
the reality that I believe it to be: humans (most) place themselves
above ALL other life and non-life. There is some selfishness
inherent in that, but mostly it is blatant ARROGANCE! An
extreme species chauvinism.
I maintain the roots to that attitude lie in a genetic survival
mechanism. It probably exists in all species--preference
toward one's own kind--the desire to avoid extinction.
I'm a big supporter of evolutionary biology, which aees pretty much the same mechanism at work. I see it on the Newsgroups as much as anywhere.
Don't get me wrong. If I were in a burning house and I only
had time to get out an old lady or a young puppy, I would
choose the old lady. Why? Because I also hold certain
genetically inspired chauvinisms. But that does NOT mean
I value the old lady's life more than the puppy's. Sometimes
life presents challenging choices. Hopefully, I won't ever
have to make a decision like that. But that IS the way
I would decide. No doubt about it.
It might depend on the old lady and on if it were my puppy. Honestly. I know one old lady who bothers me every day whose life is a total misery and is a constant downer on everyone around her. I'm really not sure I'd pull her out first.
It was a Buddhist monk that once told me not to worry too
greatly about altering my diet and my lifestyle into one of
perfection overnight. He said that insisting on
perfection at the journey's beginning, guaranteed that the
journey would NEVER be completed...or even begun. (And
nope, I'm not Buddhist. I just love exchanges with people
who have vivid--even hazy--philosophies.)
Wow. We're NEARLY back on topic. This ties in with that rewrite thread we have going elsewhere. It's a view I very much agree with, about EVERY aspect of life.
Gary
Gary Pollard
>Is your argument is that as humans we have a sense of morality as well
as
>an
>awareness of death in a way that animals don't? Since we know
>that if we eat an animal we are complicit in it's death, as opposed to
a
>lion or snake who doesn't have this knowledge, does that mean we should
>abstain from eating animals?
I think it at least means that as purportedly moral sentient beings we
should consider these issues. It may well be that we decide to do what
the hell we like with animals anyway. But I do tend to believe that
line: "The unexamined life is not worth living".
I DO think that even animals are aware of death by the way. Even humans,
with our limited senses, can smell fear and distress on other humans. I
do believe that animals can detect it in the species they are killing.
But as carnivores they have no choice. As omnivores we do.
>Or that since we can survive without eating
>animals we should survive without eating animals?
As I said, where I draw the line personally is that I think many of
these beings only exist because they are useful to us. Arguably if I
were a cow, kept in a reasonable way, and then slaughtered humanely, I
might prefer that to not having existence at all.
Gary