Dear Starchild;
That's farm boy NOT factory boy. And yes I am and have been aware of the process used to process animals in slaughter houses. I'm also from Chicago and have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Interesting experience. Try it some time.
Come on already you are not showing or saying something to a naive naif who does not know what happens to animals in slaughterhouses.
Quit kvetching.
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno
Ron,
So what you are saying is, "I wasn't involved in factory farming, but from my visit(s) to a slaughterhouse, I'm fully aware of how farm animals suffer and die." Really. How many times in your life have you been to a slaughterhouse, versus how many times in your life have you eaten dead animal flesh, or seen it appealingly advertised, *without* being reminded of the gruesome and disgusting slaughter involved? Watch the videos, and face the reality, or remember it, if you've forgotten what it's like!
I'll bet like most people, you manage, when you sit down to bite into that "juicy" McDonalds hamburger, or "tender" chicken filet, to put whatever knowledge you have of the smelly, brutal slaughter out of your mind. I'll bet you have dissociated yourself from a real, present awareness of the reality of where your "meat" comes from.
I have no need to visit a slaughterhouse, because I have no desire to eat animal flesh, and I am not a sadist. I do still eat some dairy products, so I could probably benefit from a trip to a facility where such products are produced. I wouldn't do it because it's "interesting," however, I would do it in order to help disgust myself out of desiring to consume food that contributes to suffering. Don't complain to me about "kvetching" if you find it too unpleasant to watch the videos -- if you can't stomach them, then you shouldn't be able to stomach meat-eating either! One without the other is dissociation and denial of reality, unless you're getting all your meat from rare non-factory sources.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Ron Getty wrote:
That's farm boy NOT factory boy. And yes I am and have been aware of
the process used to process animals in slaughter houses. I'm also
from Chicago and have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Interesting
experience. Try it some time.
Really? Several people have tried it... and failed. Slaughterhouses
will generally not let observers in. The videos that do make it out are
generally taken by undercover activists.
I cannot recommend strongly enough _The Omnivore’s Dilemma_, by Michael
Pollan, for anyone interested in food policy. The government distortion
of our entire food system is just staggering. Small, local, sustainable
meat production is effectively illegal due to the draconian licensing
and inspection requirements.
If we did not have the USDA inspection monopoly, some slaughterhouses
would open their doors to show the consuming public the humane, clean
conditions... and others would not. Consumers could then make whatever
inferences they chose about those that would not open their doors.
As it is now, the USDA tells us that this meat is safe... and we believe
them (or not). Yet another abdication of responsibility in favor of
government certifiers.
Again, check out _The Omnivore’s Dilemma_. And if you like that, you
can go into more detail with Pollan’s protagonist Joel Salatin, who has
written books like _Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal_, which has a
great cartoon on the cover of a USDA tank attacking a farm.
~Chris
Seriously, Starchild, exposure to "where meat comes from" tends to
desensitize one in the way that exposure to "how guns are used" keeps
one from fearing them as an adult.
My grandparents had a farm, with all kinds of livestock. But they
didn't slaughter the larger animals themselves. Instead, each year
they sent them off to a slaughterhouse (a "factory") and paid a fee,
and had the livestock returned to them wrapped neatly in butcher
paper, most of which went directly into Grandma's huge freezer behind
the house.
These are the same grandparents who took me hunting as a child.
This is why, as an adult in San Francisco, I'm the rare person who:
1) isn't afraid of guns, and
2) doesn't mind eating meat "because animals are people too."
Now, I can come up with all kinds of valid reasons to not eat meat (or
rather in my case, to eat a whole lot less of it than I did just five
years ago), and as far as my own grocery shopping goes, with the lone
exception of Thanksgiving, one would think I'm a pescetarian based on
my shopping list at Whole Foods. But, once a month, I'm at Thirsty
Bear, and they have a terrific lamb burger. And if I'm at a good
restaurant that gets its meats from organic, sustainable, and even
less "cruel" sources, I really have no qualms about ordering meat.
There's a huge difference between where a grocery store Tyson frozen
chicken patty came from and where a free-range, organic chicken breast
from Sonoma County Poultry at Nopa restaurant came from.
The videos you and other vegans love to show simply don't apply to
most nice restaurants in San Francisco, nor to the ridiculously
expensive $9.99/lb turkey I cooked this past Thanksgiving. The tactic
of showing disgusting videos of factory farms to stop people from
eating meat is a bit like the gun grabbers' showing video of the
Columbine massacre in an attempt to ban guns. The issue really isn't
as simple or clear-cut as "all meat is bad."
Rob
$9.99/lbs for a turkey??? What was special about the turkey?
Seriously, Starchild, exposure to "where meat comes from" tends to
desensitize one in the way that exposure to "how guns are used" keeps
one from fearing them as an adult.My grandparents had a farm, with all kinds of livestock. But they
didn't slaughter the larger animals themselves. Instead, each year
they sent them off to a slaughterhouse (a "factory") and paid a fee,
and had the livestock returned to them wrapped neatly in butcher
paper, most of which went directly into Grandma's huge freezer behind
the house.These are the same grandparents who took me hunting as a child.
This is why, as an adult in San Francisco, I'm the rare person who:
1) isn't afraid of guns, and
2) doesn't mind eating meat "because animals are people too."
Now, I can come up with all kinds of valid reasons to not eat meat (or
rather in my case, to eat a whole lot less of it than I did just five
years ago), and as far as my own grocery shopping goes, with the lone
exception of Thanksgiving, one would think I'm a pescetarian based on
my shopping list at Whole Foods. But, once a month, I'm at Thirsty
Bear, and they have a terrific lamb burger. And if I'm at a good
restaurant that gets its meats from organic, sustainable, and even
less "cruel" sources, I really have no qualms about ordering meat.
There's a huge difference between where a grocery store Tyson frozen
chicken patty came from and where a free-range, organic chicken breast
from Sonoma County Poultry at Nopa restaurant came from.The videos you and other vegans love to show simply don't apply to
most nice restaurants in San Francisco, nor to the ridiculously
expensive $9.99/lb turkey I cooked this past Thanksgiving. The tactic
of showing disgusting videos of factory farms to stop people from
eating meat is a bit like the gun grabbers' showing video of the
Columbine massacre in an attempt to ban guns. The issue really isn't
as simple or clear-cut as "all meat is bad."Rob
>
> Ron,
>
> So what you are saying is, "I wasn't involved in factory farming,
> but from my visit(s) to a slaughterhouse, I'm fully aware of how
farm
> animals suffer and die." Really. How many times in your life have
you
> been to a slaughterhouse, versus how many times in your life have
you
> eaten dead animal flesh, or seen it appealingly advertised,
*without*
> being reminded of the gruesome and disgusting slaughter involved?
> Watch the videos, and face the reality, or remember it, if you've
> forgotten what it's like!
>
> I'll bet like most people, you manage, when you sit down to bite
> into that "juicy" McDonalds hamburger, or "tender" chicken filet, to
> put whatever knowledge you have of the smelly, brutal slaughter out
> of your mind. I'll bet you have dissociated yourself from a real,
> present awareness of the reality of where your "meat" comes from.
>
> I have no need to visit a slaughterhouse, because I have no desire
> to eat animal flesh, and I am not a sadist. I do still eat some
dairy
> products, so I could probably benefit from a trip to a facility
where
> such products are produced. I wouldn't do it because it's
> "interesting," however, I would do it in order to help disgust
myself
> out of desiring to consume food that contributes to suffering. Don't
> complain to me about "kvetching" if you find it too unpleasant to
> watch the videos -- if you can't stomach them, then you shouldn't be
> able to stomach meat-eating either! One without the other is
> dissociation and denial of reality, unless you're getting all your
> meat from rare non-factory sources.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
>
>
> > Dear Starchild;
> >
> > That's farm boy NOT factory boy. And yes I am and have been aware
> > of the process used to process animals in slaughter houses. I'm
> > also from Chicago and have you ever been to a slaughterhouse?
> > Interesting experience. Try it some time.
> >
> > Come on already you are not showing or saying something to a naive
> > naif who does not know what happens to animals in slaughterhouses.
> > Quit kvetching.
> >
> >
> > Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
> > Hostis res Publica
> > Morte ai Tiranni
> > Dum Spiro, Pugno
> >
> >
> > From: Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:55:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Eat Plants / list dynamics
> >
> > Ron,
> >
> > You have a background in factory farming and witnessed the
> > kinds of
> > processes and actions shown in these videos?
> >
> > ((( starchild )))
> >
> >
> > > Dear Starchild;
> > >
> > > Sorry - you are talking to a farm boy. You ain't gonna sho' me
> > > nuttin' I don't already know about. Coals to newcastle kinda
stuff.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
> > > Hostis res Publica
> > > Morte ai Tiranni
> > > Dum Spiro, Pugno
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:01:37 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Eat Plants / list dynamics
> > >
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > I believe the only reason that sane, civilized, compassionate
> > > people
> > > can talk cavalierly about meat-eating as it exists today is
because
> > > they are ignorant of or deliberately choose to shut their eyes
to
> > the
> > > reality of what goes on in factory farming.
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z14IWbUC1J4
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjSlOOYIkCE&feature=related
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDHXO9iwSqo
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOs_a4iHQPY&feature=related
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veNa4W9t3MM&feature=related
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eQQQBn4dlo
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWKkNAswUgE&feature=related
> > >
> > > Love & Liberty,
> > > ((( starchild )))
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear Marcy and Dr. Mike and Wine Mike;
> > > >
> > > > Not too far back there was an article about one of the
oldest men
> > > > around who was over 100 years old and his diet included without
> > > > fail a daily breakfast of sausage and bacon and eggs - all
fried -
> > > > with toast - real butter with strawberry jam and a glass of real
> > > > orange juice.
> > > >
> > > > And to keep Wine Mike happy [later in the day a glass
of red
> > > > wine.
> > > >
> > > > Whooo boy! All of that every day would put me under in a
flash!!!
> > > >
> > > > The point being as Libertarians we are free to make our
choices so
> > > > long as those choices are about us and not forcing others to
do
> > the
> > > > same. Tah Dah!
> > > >
> > > > Yes Dr. Mike LPSF meetings at McDonalds seem to have some
> > > > merit!!!
> > > >
> > > > Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
> > > > Hostis res Publica
> > > > Morte ai Tiranni
> > > > Dum Spiro, Pugno
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@>
> > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 8:18:11 PM
> > > > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Eat Plants / list dynamics
> > > >
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > > So the beauty of this list is that you all have IQ's of a
million
> > > and
> > > > senses of humor to match. After a 14 hour day of work, I was
> > > feeling
> > > > rather down; all I had to do was read the latest thread on
Eating
> > > > Plants to laugh out loud and feel great. Yes Michael D. your
post
> > > does
> > > > qualify and is pretty interesting info to boot. And as a
> > > > Brazilian/Argentinian, I loved Glenn's post! Raised on gobs of
> > lard,
> > > > cheap Argentinian beef, "bacalhau" dripping with olive oil, I am
> > > > amazed I am still alive, and my Mom recently celebrated her 90th
> > > > birthday.
> > > >
> > > > This all means that libertarianism works. We are all free to
> > follow
> > > > whatever diet we chose, purchase whatever products we like
to eat.
> > > > Were Big Brother in charge of diets, what would it mandate?
Based
> > > > on what?
> > > >
> > > > Marcy
> > > >
> > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Marcy;
> > > > >
> > > > > As Marcy said:
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, I believe we started the plant discussion with my comment
> > > that
> > > > as libertarians, we prefer to influence the market with
things we
> > > do,
> > > > rather than with government
> > > > > edicts; such as what we purchase, what we eat, etc
> > > > >
> > > > > As an prime example I wrote this for an op-ed which was
> > published:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cesar Chavez, the charismatic leader of the United Farm
Workers,
> > > > made a strategic error with his grape boycott. To gain better
> > wages,
> > > > benefits, and more farm worker employment, he needed only to
> > > create a
> > > > higher consumer demand for grapes. Free-market forces would have
> > > > required the growers to plant and harvest more grapes, thus
> > > > necessitating more workers to plant and harvest the grapes.
> > > Competing
> > > > growers would have had to offer better pay and benefits to
attract
> > > > farm workers. Then Chavez's dream of better working
conditions for
> > > > farm workers would have been accomplished without the forced
> > > contracts
> > > > between the grape growers and the UFW following 16 years of
> > strikes,
> > > > marches, and secondary boycotts.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW: for the record which no one really talks about Cesar
> > > Chavez was
> > > > strongly against illegal immigrants. Why? They were
competing for
> > > the
> > > > jobs of legal immigrants and US citizens taking away a
bargaining
> > > > point for farm labor and forcing a drop in pay by
undercutting the
> > > > legal immigrants. Yes this is correcto mundo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes talk food and veggies or whatever but relate it to
> > Libertarian
> > > > principles and philosophies and so on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
> > > > > Hostis res Publica
> > > > > Morte ai Tiranni
> > > > > Dum Spiro, Pugno
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@>
> > > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:44:18 AM
> > > > > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Eat Plants / list dynamics
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear All,
> > > > >
> > > > > As one of the moderators of this list, maybe I should put
in my
> > > > half a
> > > > > cent on the "list dynamics" part. I agree with Starchild that
> > > > one of
> > > > > the great appeals of this list is that no subject is off
topic.
> > > > > However, since this list was established to discuss
libertarian
> > > > views,
> > > > > perhaps we can cloth any subject we are moved to discuss
with a
> > > > > political slant, as Ron suggests. BTW, I believe we
started the
> > > > plant
> > > > > discussion with my comment that as libertarians, we prefer to
> > > > > influence the market with things we do, rather than with
> > > government
> > > > > edicts; such as what we purchase, what we eat, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcy
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear All;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The overall preference would be for any discussions on
> > > veggies be
> > > > > Libertarian oriented and what eating veggie has to do with
> > > > > Libertarianism its principles philosophy
> > > > > guidelines politics membership voting candidates and so forth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
> > > > > > Hostis res Publica
> > > > > > Morte ai Tiranni
> > > > > > Dum Spiro, Pugno
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: "dredelstein@" <dredelstein@>
> > > > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:06:47 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Eat Plants / list dynamics
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I understand their feedback, Mike D. is against and
> > Starchild
> > > > > > favors discussing veganism on LPSF-discuss.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As the ultimate decider of these things, what is your
verdict?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Warm regards, Michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "Starchild" <sfdreamer@>
> > > > > > To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 3:06 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Eat Plants / list dynamics
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of those lists is
> > > > > > <libertarians_for_animal_rights@yahoogroups.com> (http://
> > > > > >
pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarians_For_Animal_Rights/).
> > > > It has
> > > > > > 226 members, however there is very little discussion. The
> > > same is
> > > > > > true for other lists I'm on that have a narrow
> > interpretation of
> > > > > > staying on topic, like the local Pink Pistols list. These
> > lists
> > > > tend
> > > > > > to be fairly boring, imho -- getting a group of people
> > together
> > > > and
> > > > > > only letting them talk about the one specific topic on which
> > > > they're
> > > > > > generally in agreement is not a recipe for lively
> > conversation.
> > > > This
> > > > > > is one of the things I love about the LPSF list -- we talk
> > > > about all
> > > > > > kinds of stuff -- plants, guns, gay marriage, god, the
> > economy,
> > > > > > Iceland, Tibet, etc. Keeps things interesting, imho.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Love & Liberty,
> > > > > > ((( starchild )))
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > With all due respect this subject is off topic. I
> > recommend an
> > > > > > > "LPSF Benefits of Eating More Plants" list for those who
> > > wish to
> > > > > > > carry on the conversation. But I'm sure there are
already
> > many
> > > > > > > other lists covering the subject people could join if
> > > > interested.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
> > > > > > > discuss@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > > dredelstein@
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 8:34 AM
> > > > > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Eat Plants
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Phil,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All beef and fish are high in either animal protein or
> > fat or
> > > > both.
> > > > > > > The accumulation in the body of the harmful effects of
> > > these are
> > > > > > > usually toxic to those who wish to age healthfully. All
> > > beef and
> > > > > > > fish
> > > > > > > also lack fiber, anti-oxidants, and other phytochemicals
> > > > found in
> > > > > > > plants.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What are phytochemicals? According to wikipedia:
> > > > "Phytochemicals are
> > > > > > > plant-derived chemical compounds under scientific research
> > > > for their
> > > > > > > potential health-promoting properties. Phytochemicals (or
> > > > > > > 'phytonutrients') are non-essential nutrients, but still
> > they
> > > > have
> > > > > > > been scientifically confirmed as being important to human
> > > > health."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you're interested I would be happy to send you
studies to
> > > > support
> > > > > > > the healthfulness of eating plants. For a start here's an
> > > > excellent
> > > > > > > cross-cultural perspective on diet and health:
> > > > > > > www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/
> > art0422.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not aware of the counter-evidence you say exists,
but I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > love
> > > > > > > to see it. Please forward it to me. Thanks. (OTOH, I am
> > > aware of
> > > > > > > people making your claim. Did you know they're all
statists
> > > and
> > > > > > > favor
> > > > > > > Obama's stimulus plan?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's debate over whether humans evolved as omnivores.
> > > > However,
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > is irrelevant to our discussion. Evolution was impelled by
> > > > surviving
> > > > > > > long enough to pass on genes and protect genetic offspring
> > > until
> > > > > > > viable. This did not require living until 100 (my
short-term
> > > > goal)
> > > > > > > free of heart-disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis,
> > > > osteoporosis,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > other ravages of aging.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Warm regards, Michael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: "Philip Berg" <philzberg@>
> > > > > > > To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 4:16 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Diet [was: India Issues Report
> > > > > > > Challenging
> > > > > > > Global Warming Fears (Re: Climate Cha
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What about the considerable evidence that one hundred
> > > percent
> > > > > > > > grass
> > > > > > > > fed beef and wild cold water fish are healthy? Didn't we
> > > > evolve as
> > > > > > > > omnivores?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Dear Marcy,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Your concern for animals is very kind.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> But how about concern for yourself and your long-term
> > > health?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> In about 20 years when you get to be my age, the
ravages
Rob,
If a child grew up around meat production, and was effectively taught to see factory farm conditions as normal, I think it might be as you describe. But I expect that a person not raised in such circumstances visiting a slaughterhouse or factory farm, or being exposed to their conditions second-hand via video or literature, would have a rather different effect.
As Chris points out, it's difficult to know for sure where that restaurant meat or ridiculously expensive turkey came from. Probably if a restaurant or store advertises its meat as coming from organic or humane sources, its history will not resemble that of the gruesome facilities in the videos. Probably. The people at the restaurant or store may not always be aware however. The following appeared in a Feb. 4th SF Weekly story about salmon:
"Take the recent case of Park Chow, the Inner Sunset's revered Cal-cuisine hot spot. Park Chow's menu advertises its nightly fish special as "wild" — always, without change or exception. However, diners were served farmed salmon on a few occasions in November and December without knowing it, the restaurant acknowledged after being contacted by SF Weekly."
Personally I would assert that all meat *is* bad, while acknowledging that it doesn't all have a disgusting factory farm pedigree. A hell of a lot of it does, however. Thanks to increasingly health-conscious shoppers and eaters, and progress in developing and bringing to market alternative foods, there are a growing number of non-meat alternatives out there. Many meat-eaters who've tried them in my company have been pleasantly surprised, with not a few saying they taste just like the animal products they were designed to resemble.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
nice post Derek
I grew up on a farm too (which explains why I'm a redneck)
and I also have hunted a fair bit.......usually with a bow.
Death......is never a pleasant thing........whither the cow being
slaughtered, the 9.99 a pound turkey, the deer with the arrow thru its heart
(hopefully) or the chicken having its neck wrung by dear old
granny...........................go to you tube and you can find lions
feeding upon live water buffalo because they have broken its back and it can
no longer run away.......................
but in Kentucky and Tennessee if the deer population isn't culled they breed
like crazy and starve to death.............because there are no longer
enough wolves and bears to kill them and eat them like mother nature
intended. What is the point of this..............animals are going to die
and be eaten because that's the way the world works.............
Who says the tree isn't crying out in agony when it is cut down? The noble
napa cabbage screaming for its life........the mighty bok choy howling for
its very existence...........
don't eat meat if you feel like it.........I don't give a hoot.....but the
politics of food...............
bore most of us to tears
Amen!
I should probably clarify...the politics as it pertains to the USDA and
new effort on the part of factory farming to mandate biometric tracking
of animals, government subsidies etc... are all politically interesting.
But when the discussion starts to move towards some kind of moralistic
discussion about what is good or bad, right or wrong, healthy or not,
the benefits of long life vs the demerits, health and more regarding
what we eat then it starts to become a religious discussion.
My college professor, a Jesuit who was a big food and wine guy (now 90
years old) when confronted by students who said he was too heavy and
should cut back said "I would rather add more life to my years than
years to my life". As mentioned in private discussions with members of
this list before my doctor says a belief is G_d is a good healthy thing
and that people who don't believe don't deal with aging and eventual
death nearly as well as those who do. Are the purported psychological
health benefits of a belief in G_d a reason to make the belief in G_d a
part of this discussion? I don't think so.
If anyone wants this to become a religious discussion then we can
probably start bringing up how immoral it is for Libertarians to not
reproduce in good numbers as it is bad for the demographics of the
movement...and more. And of course this means that homosexual and other
non-reproductive sexual behavior is contrary to the Libertarian ideal to
breed and populate the world with like-minded children (not that there
is any guarantee our children will agree with us). And abortion is
exactly the same as killing other animals and should be illegal as
should be homosexuality and.......etc...etc....etc...
If some want to make this a health discussion then we can discuss the
statistics that show how important oil is to vegetable vitamin
digestion, how people who consume alcohol moderately live longer and
healthier lives than those who don't and how people who are married are
happier, wealthier and live longer than those who aren't. And we can
start telling Libertarians who are none of these things why they SHOULD
in the interest of Libertarianism BECOME those things.
But I really don't want to go there with all of you because frankly...as
Glen suggests...it is pretty boring and as we would probably all
agree...wrong. And it starts to sound like mental masturbation among
people who can't get focused enough to deal with real world politics
which is the reason the Libertarian Party was created.
I suggest we focus on the current battle between the tax-payers and the
state regarding the budget deficits and the battle to repeal the
consequences of Prop 8...and of course the war on drugs, immigration,
the right to work (SF minimum wage), the rights of sex workers, the
obscene wages of government workers and more. We have lots of things we
can agree on that are more topical for more people. If we as a political
organization head in the direction of vegetarians vs meat eaters, then
we are doomed politically to the farther fringe than we are already. And
that would be a shame.
Just my two cents...
Mike
Mike,
Thanks for your thoughts! I've interspersed my responses below...
I should probably clarify…the politics as it pertains to the USDA and new effort on the part of factory farming to mandate biometric tracking of animals, government subsidies etc… are all politically interesting. But when the discussion starts to move towards some kind of moralistic discussion about what is good or bad, right or wrong, healthy or not, the benefits of long life vs the demerits, health and more regarding what we eat then it starts to become a religious discussion.
Is there is any inherent difference between a religious discussion and a discussion involving an ideological worldview (e.g. libertarianism)? Aren't "faith in government" and "faith in free markets" essentially religious views?
My college professor, a Jesuit who was a big food and wine guy (now 90 years old) when confronted by students who said he was too heavy and should cut back said “I would rather add more life to my years than years to my life”.
I like that quote! I've heard something like it before and am pretty sure it wasn't original to your prof, but still a good one.
As mentioned in private discussions with members of this list before my doctor says a belief is G_d is a good healthy thing and that people who don’t believe don’t deal with aging and eventual death nearly as well as those who do. Are the purported psychological health benefits of a belief in G_d a reason to make the belief in G_d a part of this discussion? I don’t think so.
My own reading suggests your doctor is probably right that people who believe in a god (or gods) deal better with aging and death on average than people who do not. So it would certainly seem reasonable to me to bring the issue up in a conversation about how to live healthier (a non-theist might counter that it is the belief itself, and not the object of the belief, that matters -- e.g. believing in a powerful, loving Man in the Moon could offer the same psychological benefits as belief in Yahweh).
On a more practical level, what better place in your life to engage in a good intellectual discussion about the existence of a diety (or dieties)? I'm guessing this opportunity doesn't come up much in church, although I could be wrong.
If anyone wants this to become a religious discussion then we can probably start bringing up how immoral it is for Libertarians to not reproduce in good numbers as it is bad for the demographics of the movement…and more.
I agree that's also worth talking about. Although I don't think there can be a moral obligation to produce -- no one is physically harmed by a decision not to have kids -- I nevertheless feel that the libertarian movement ought to encourage libertarians to have lots of children. Ideally it would also provide special ideological support and guidance for those becoming parents, to help offset what are for many people the conservatizing tendencies of having kids.
And of course this means that homosexual and other non-reproductive sexual behavior is contrary to the Libertarian ideal to breed and populate the world with like-minded children (not that there is any guarantee our children will agree with us).
The implications of homosexual and non-reproductive sexuality seem like a legitimate topic as well, although describing non-reproductive sexual behavior as "contrary to the ideal of having children" seems to me like describing marriage as "contrary to the ideal of self-reliance" -- perhaps technically valid observations in each case, but rather missing the point! In neither case is the activity or institution in question inherently incompatible with the ideal, and may even be beneficial to it in certain ways.
Gays can of course adopt and raise children, or go outside their relationships for a second biological parent. If libertarianism is primarily a matter of nurture, not nature, then adoption is just as good as heterosexual breeding from the perspective of the movement. If it is primarily a matter of nature and not nurture, then from the perspective of the movement, promiscuity among heterosexual and bisexual libertarian men is more desirable than monogamy.
And abortion is exactly the same as killing other animals and should be illegal as should be homosexuality and…….etc…etc….etc…
Right or wrong, having an abortion isn't the same as killing animals for meat. The whole argument over the life being part of the woman's body is completely absent in the debate over animal slaughter.
If some want to make this a health discussion then we can discuss the statistics that show how important oil is to vegetable vitamin digestion, how people who consume alcohol moderately live longer and healthier lives than those who don’t and how people who are married are happier, wealthier and live longer than those who aren’t. And we can start telling Libertarians who are none of these things why they SHOULD in the interest of Libertarianism BECOME those things.
Again I think a strong distinction must be drawn between things which harm others and those which do not. But I see nothing wrong with talking about which personal lifestyles and choices are most in the interest of libertarianism. Indeed it would seem quite remiss of us *not* to address these questions.
But I really don’t want to go there with all of you because frankly…as Glen suggests…it is pretty boring and as we would probably all agree…wrong.
Prone to intractable disagreements, perhaps. But boring? Surely not!
And it starts to sound like mental masturbation among people who can’t get focused enough to deal with real world politics which is the reason the Libertarian Party was created.
Mike, you wouldn't call concern over abortions "mental masturbation," would you? I don't think mistreating a non-human animal is as wrong as similarly mistreating a human being, but I think the manner in, and scale on, which it occurs makes human mistreatment of other animals among the most morally pressing issues of our times, far more so than abortion. I sincerely believe that killing and mistreating non-human animals is a form of aggression and therefore a proper concern of libertarianism.
But however one feels about that proposition, I'm not sure why the topic wouldn't count as "real world politics." Laws over animal treatment are fiercely debated in mainstream politics -- one such issue was on the last California ballot. Millions of people are passionate about animal rights, and the cause is a significant political movement in its own right. At Change.org (a site organized as best I can tell as an attempt to flesh out the "change" Obama campaigned on by providing feedback from his left-wing base), "Animal Rights" is the second most popular cause out of 19 causes listed by the site (behind only "Stop Global Warming"):
(Attachment QYMZgyHBMSUJRmh-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment qHTdiILTWKKKbbs-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment SBPMbwJCHAkJSZK-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment cAiNBIQvByhGpMV-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment QEKwpJZoAPROVDQ-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment QHTgwlmobCGsJcH-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment JztKcACOFYbZJHn-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment DdztwdCNGrMnPQV-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment QNWemDDePMZKAdD-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment FmPYpWfbWbhUmMN-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment eaGbMeYWEXjLHiI-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment HLQUOKiNDnnVsWC-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment ENSWafnjUiKtrqO-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment LTsvvplutKuzwaT-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment xBDpQPIGROFYKLz-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment ICsQbtbWUkuaVWi-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment BSLYjoCtVvLHZDI-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment KxPQJGreCEfwUZo-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
(Attachment UHPtCYpRDfATUQx-58x43-cropped.jpg is missing)
In my sleep last night I remembered this was the discuss list...so I
guess it should be held to the standard of "discussion". If the
discussion starts to become annoying we all have the right to be removed
from the Discuss list and stick with the Activists.
Mike