Vegans and Vegetarians: a question RE: fake crab...

[IMPOSTER]

> not necessarily, though. It depends on the system you're living
> in: who makes the law? In dictatorships or with
> "enlightened" despots, it's not the majority. In
> democracies, it is generally the majority (I omit some very
> tricky cases).
> "Laws are too aligned with culture ..." you write.
> Yes. What is not? What you may consider morally wrong (not
> necessarily illegal, though) also depends on cultural values.
> There were indeed times when people thought that slavery was
> morally NOT wrong; the laws followed. There was a time when the
> German people agreed that Jews are rankless citizens, laws
> followed.

Yes, but we've already agreed that what is lawful is irrelevant. In any culural context, burning Jews is wrong!

> There have been moments in which other people found that slavery
> and racial discrimination was morally wrong, they made their
> point very clear, and the law followed.

> So, and this goes back to the point about activism, it has been
> much more fruitful to continue to explain and argue about
> opinions, being explicit about your views, and not admitting
> fake representations, than to burn buildings, insult people or
> what not.

This, historically, is preposterous! The Jews that survived the holocaust were not rescued by people continuing "to explain and argue about opinions"! Oppressive regimes simply do not admit such discussion. Do you think that the sufragettes were misguided? If they were, at least what they did WORKED, and quickly, where decades of explanation and argument had not done.

> When violence wins from communication, totalitarianism is
> knocking on the door.

What if communication is rebuffed? What if the situation can be seen to demand urgent action?

My ONLY problem with so-called terrorism in the name of animal rights is that it then becomes more difficult to condemn the actions of extreme anti-abortionists. But it can be done!

For the record, I do not support violence against people. (In part, but only in part, this is because of the problem of public perception.) I do not have a problem, however, with "extremists" who vandalise and destroy property, demonstrate, and insult and harrass those responsible for the suffering of others. These tactics can be seen to WORK, and are made necessary by the fact that attempts to engage authorities in discussion are ignored.

[IMPOSTER]

> I quote your answer to what started it:

> "That's what my throbbing cousin, a notorious paedophile,
> always said. Nobody listened. "

> You tell me, dear, if the implication was NOT that you disagree
> with free choice comparing it to lawlessness.

No, Andrew, although I can see why you may have assumed that. My point was simply that very few people seriously believe that every opinion is equally valid when it comes to certain issues.

To put it simply for you: few people would argue AGAINST an individual's right to choose his or her own favourite colour, whereas few people would argue FOR the same individual's right to choose whether or not to murder.

These are extremes, of course, but each choice that my fictitious individual has to make will be closer to one or the other of these extremes. My point is that I see animal experimentation and meat-eating as being closer to the "murder" end of the spectrum. That is not to say that when I claim that these activities are wrong I am necessarily infallible. But it does mean that not every opinion on these issues is a valid one. It's not a question of aesthetics, or of mere personal preference. It's a moral problem: you have to take sides, and be prepared to justify your position. We CAN'T just agree to disagree.

> Eating meat won't.
> My original point was that you made a wrong and very
> questionable comparison, equating something that was legally
> wrong to something that was not. In cases of legally wrong
> actions, the choices of the individual are per s? limited - by
> law that is.

I think we've already decided that legality is entirely separate from morality. Given that, in "legally wrong actions" the choices of the individual are NOT necessarily restricted.

> What IS the point, is this: your "original" joke is
> such a very "original" one. Every time there's a
> debate on free choice and personal values, you get this kind of
> nonsense.

Well, clearly, I meant "original" in the sense that it started this discussion. I wasn't claiming it to be some kind of seminal comic moment!

> The joke, if you consider it to be a joke, is shifting
> the discussion towards a pane it is never intended to be brought
> upon.
> And don't try to push me into accepting the presupposition that
> it was ME who brought in the point of legality: when you linked
> the question of free choice to the paedophile "joke",
> you introduced it. In most countries I know, paedophilia is
> indeed a crime.

It's not though! Shagging kids may be, but that's a different issue. A paedophile is still a paedophile even if he only fantasises about acting upon his impulses. As far as I know, he can't be convicted for doing so (fantasising, I mean). This would not stop others from viewing his very THOUGHTS as wrong, or evil. NOT ME, by the way! I would certainly think them potentially unhealthy, but I really believe that people are entitled to fantasise about whatever they like. My made-up "throbbing cousin's" fantasies are not answerable to anyone - his OPINIONS concerning the morality of his fantasies, and of paedophile acts, however, are.

That said, I agree with you that my introducing paedophilia into the argument only serves to muddle things. It is not the most useful comparison. So I will happily drop it from the debate, if that's okay with you.

[Andrew]

> Yes, but we've already agreed that what is lawful is irrelevant.
> In any culural context, burning Jews is wrong!

I'm sorry. Return to Europe, somewhere around 1939, and you'll find that parliaments voted laws stripping Jews of all their titles, ranks .. stripping them of their humanity. We now say that it is wrong, and though I firmly believe that it is indeed wrong, I fear the days where similar things will happen again.

> This, historically, is preposterous! The Jews that survived the
> holocaust were not rescued by people continuing "to explain
> and argue about opinions"! Oppressive regimes simply do not
> admit such discussion. Do you think that the sufragettes were
> misguided? If they were, at least what they did WORKED, and
> quickly, where decades of explanation and argument had not done.

The Jews were not rescued by people who tried to overthrow the nazi regime, that's what I meant. It's a historical mistake to equate resistance with saving Jews, as the recent Papon trial in France made clear.
The Jews were saved by people who stood firm in their belief that it was right to do so. I can give you abundance of documents that give a long list of people who WROTE LETTERS to the Nazi authorities, asking for liberation, special treatment, allowing visits, sending blankets and clothes for people who were put on transport to detention camps first, and to extermination camps next.
More acts of civil disobedience saved Jews than active anti-nazi activities (and to make matters even more complex, not all civil disobedience was anti-nazi).
Moreover, it is a recurrent testimony of many survivors of the holocaust that after the war ended, nobody wanted to listen to them. Not even those who - working for resistant factions - rescued them.
Surely, the fact that the war was ended - an act of violence - did mean that the horror was stopped. But it did not mean that the machinery of these crimes was fully understood, and sadly it did not mean that the world would remain spared from other "holocausts".
So yes, of course it helps and this all contributes to the cause, but we should be very well aware that violence very often blinds people from seeing the real purpose of their actions.

> What if communication is rebuffed? What if the situation can be
> seen to demand urgent action?

Then the violent action (that's what I'm talking about) should be have a precise target, and be very limited. And care should be taken not to justify the violence.

> My ONLY problem with so-called terrorism in the name of animal
> rights is that it then becomes more difficult to condemn the
> actions of extreme anti-abortionists. But it can be done!

> For the record, I do not support violence against people. (In
> part, but only in part, this is because of the problem of public
> perception.) I do not have a problem, however, with
> "extremists" who vandalise and destroy property,
> demonstrate, and insult and harrass those responsible for the
> suffering of others. These tactics can be seen to WORK, and are
> made necessary by the fact that attempts to engage authorities
> in discussion are ignored.

It works temporarily. The party that gets the @#!!! is only aiming to get rid of the nuisance; it doesn't mean things won't start again, nor does it mean that they take the matter seriously.
We have a company in the neighbourhood that was extremely polluting, until they discovered a new fabrication process that was cheaper, and environment friendly. Cheers from everyone, not in the least local protest groups who had been very active. The company soon discovered, though, that they could cut even further the costs, by reducing the efficiency of the environment friendly measures. As a consequence: they now produce more, it's less polluting (but still), and the wastes produced are no longer adequately dealt with. On the long run, it will be as damaging as before.

Back to square one.
I expect temporary relief from violent activism, but for longlasting effects, you really have to work on the minds. Change the people, and you'll change the ideas.

This has been rather long, sorry.

Andrew

[Andrew]

> No, Andrew, although I can see why you may have assumed that. My
> point was simply that very few people seriously believe that
> every opinion is equally valid when it comes to certain issues.

I agree with that ... but was that really the point in this case? The issue was clear (eating meat) - I believe the discussion should have stayed on that level.
Point is: do you think that eating meat is indeed murder, and that it *should* therefore be considered "immoral" (and perhaps, illegal)? I think that on this level, every opinion has to be heard before we accept the premisses. Once they are accepted, then indeed not every opinion is equally valid. But before that point is reached, ... there's need of some serious debate.

> To put it simply for you: few people would argue AGAINST an
> individual's right to choose his or her own favourite colour,
> whereas few people would argue FOR the same individual's right
> to choose whether or not to murder.
> These are extremes, of course, but each choice that my
> fictitious individual has to make will be closer to one or the
> other of these extremes. My point is that I see animal
> experimentation and meat-eating as being closer to the
> "murder" end of the spectrum. That is not to say that
> when I claim that these activities are wrong I am necessarily
> infallible. But it does mean that not every opinion on these
> issues is a valid one. It's not a question of aesthetics, or of
> mere personal preference. It's a moral problem: you have to take
> sides, and be prepared to justify your position. We CAN'T just
> agree to disagree.

I'm sorry but I don't understand: in virtue of which principle do you decide whether opinion x or y is valid or not? The "throbbing cousin's" fantasies are fine BECAUSE you can't be convicted, and eating meat is out BECAUSE it is immoral. If morality, as I would define it, is a concrete solution to conflicting ethical values and choices, then it is indeed a question of taking sides. And once a side is taken, I fully agree, not every opinion is equally valid. But again, BEFORE the decision is made, be it morally or legally (distinct though not separate), all opinions should be heard.

> I think we've already decided that legality is entirely separate
> from morality. Given that, in "legally wrong actions"
> the choices of the individual are NOT necessarily restricted.

well, it's not entirely separated; but you can get conflicting cases indeed. I however don't believe that you have such things as a free unbound, unrestricted choice - in whatever context. And it would be morally wrong to continue to separate morality from law - I don't know how you see the law but to me it is a practical translation towards society of moral choices towards an individual. Yes again, the system is far from being perfect, and there's still a lot of work that has to be done.

> Well, clearly, I meant "original" in the sense that it
> started this discussion. I wasn't claiming it to be some kind of
> seminal comic moment!

didn't I see that? it was a bad joke, that's what I meant.

> It's not though! Shagging kids may be, but that's a different
> issue. A paedophile is still a paedophile even if he only
> fantasises about acting upon his impulses. As far as I know, he
> can't be convicted for doing so (fantasising, I mean).

isn't that too obvious? But the fact that he cannot be convicted, does that really imply freedom to fantasise about it?

> This
> would not stop others from viewing his very THOUGHTS as wrong,
> or evil. NOT ME, by the way! I would certainly think them
> potentially unhealthy, but I really believe that people are
> entitled to fantasise about whatever they like. My made-up
> "throbbing cousin's" fantasies are not answerable to
> anyone - his OPINIONS concerning the morality of his fantasies,
> and of paedophile acts, however, are.

then what is the difference between fantasies, thoughts and opinions, in your case? The line you walk is very thin. As far as morality goes, opinions, thoughts and actions can be considered. As far as the law is concerned, in general only actions are judged.
I don't see how you would make a difference between fantasies and thoughts. And although thoughts are said to be free, dealing with them, however, is not. To return to the "throbbing cousin", he may indeed fantasise about it, but the moment he thinks it is acceptable, he incorporates it into his value system and considers it OK. I personally don't feel we have to live with this kind of liberties - without judging the person, I think it would be a moral defeat to allow this "personalization" of morality.

The same reasoning could be applied to killing animals: as long as my throbbing cousin thinks that killing animals is OK but never kills any himself ... he walks undisturbed? Again, I'd say no.

So, not every opinion is equally valid, in virtue of a decision that was made. Once the decision made, you can judge. But as long as the decision is hanging, or not even discussed - let alone made - it's impossible to conclude. Sadly.
In the paedophilia case, I think that the decision has indeed been made. As far as eating meat is concerned, the debate is only beginning.

> That said, I agree with you that my introducing paedophilia into
> the argument only serves to muddle things. It is not the most
> useful comparison. So I will happily drop it from the debate, if
> that's okay with you.

Fine with that, since that was the whole point.
Thanks for your motivated answers!

Andrew.

[IMPOSTER]

> I'm sorry. Return to Europe, somewhere around 1939, and you'll
> find that parliaments voted laws stripping Jews of all their
> titles, ranks .. stripping them of their humanity. We now say
> that it is wrong, and though I firmly believe that it is indeed
> wrong, I fear the days where similar things will happen again.

What do you mean by "we now say that it is wrong"? Although you say that you firmly beleive that treating Jews in this manner IS wrong (i.e. now), are you therefore implying that under Nazi rule, because these things were officially sanctioned, they could not meaningfully be described as morally wrong THEN?

I'm not being facile. I find it unlikely that this is what you think - but if you don't, then I can't see what your point is here. Read again what you have written above. It is a statement of basic historical fact (even if the date is slightly dodgy), that few people don't already know. You're not saying anything in particular.

> The Jews were not rescued by people who tried to overthrow the
> nazi regime, that's what I meant. It's a historical mistake to
> equate resistance with saving Jews, as the recent Papon trial in
> France made clear.

Well, for the most part, animals are not rescued by people attempting to otherthrow their particular government. Once more, what is your point?

Why write "The Jews were not rescued by people who tried to overthrow the nazi regime"? Some were! Some weren't! A point, please!

And let's stop our discussion of the holocaust as soon as possible if you're going to continue to make ridiculous statements regarding the likes of Papon. Far from being part of the resistance, Papon was the Vichy collaborationist regime's number two official in the Bordeaux region and supervisor of its Service for Jewish Questions! Come on!

> The Jews were saved by people who stood firm in their belief
> that it was right to do so.

Hmm...

> I can give you abundance of
> documents that give a long list of people who WROTE LETTERS to
> the Nazi authorities, asking for liberation, special treatment,
> allowing visits, sending blankets and clothes for people who
> were put on transport to detention camps first, and to
> extermination camps next.

That would be sweet, but useless. I would prefer if you could give me an abundance of replies to these letters from the Nazi authorities, ageeing to these people's demands to liberate the Jews. Do you have an abundance of these, then?

I love this idea of asking the Nazis to provide some nice blankets for the people who were about to be gassed to death! You're not serious! Hmm, maybe it is a good idea. Instead of trying to stop animal testing, I might politely request that the research companies make sure that beagles, after being forced to swallow bleach day after day, be given a tasty dog-biscuit to make up for it!

> More acts of civil disobedience saved Jews than active anti-nazi
> activities (and to make matters even more complex, not all civil
> disobedience was anti-nazi).

You'll have to be more specific than that, I'm afraid, otherwise this is meaningless.

> Moreover, it is a recurrent testimony of many survivors of the
> holocaust that after the war ended, nobody wanted to listen to
> them. Not even those who - working for resistant factions -
> rescued them.

I don't see how this is any way relevant. People are strange, and selfish, for sure. So what?

> Surely, the fact that the war was ended - an act of violence -
> did mean that the horror was stopped. But it did not mean that
> the machinery of these crimes was fully understood, and sadly it
> did not mean that the world would remain spared from other
> "holocausts".

Of course, and this is sad. But nothing is perfect, and the last Jew left in Europe would be cruelly killed long before "the machinery of these crimes was fully understood". The use of direct action does not preclude the calmer measures that you (and me, too!) advocate.

> So yes, of course it helps and this all contributes to the
> cause, but we should be very well aware that violence very often
> blinds people from seeing the real purpose of their actions.

It does, but, again, so what? Argument very often blinds people from seeing what they are really, in effect, arguing for.

> Then the violent action (that's what I'm talking about) should
> be have a precise target, and be very limited. And care should
> be taken not to justify the violence.

That's usually the case. But why should care "be taken not to justify the violence"? We both have just justified the violence! If you've simply made a typing error, and you meant to write "justify violence" (i.e. in general), then I can't disagree. If not, tell me what you mean.

> It works temporarily. The party that gets the @#!!! is only
> aiming to get rid of the nuisance; it doesn't mean things won't
> start again, nor does it mean that they take the matter
> seriously.

Yes. Yours is the method that will clinch the deal, so to speak. But that is a long way off. Acts of direct action will, firstly, cause the issue to be seriously discussed. When it is, negotiation can mostly take over. Secondly, when you say that it "works temporarily", we mustn't forget to mention that in this context 'working temporarily' means ending actual suffering that is happening NOW, saving a real life that would be lost NOW. Other lives may well be threatened elsewhere, and in the future. Then we must do the same elsewhere, and in the future.

> We have a company in the neighbourhood that was extremely
> polluting, until they discovered a new fabrication process that
> was cheaper, and environment friendly. Cheers from everyone, not
> in the least local protest groups who had been very active. The
> company soon discovered, though, that they could cut even
> further the costs, by reducing the efficiency of the environment
> friendly measures. As a consequence: they now produce more, it's
> less polluting (but still), and the wastes produced are no
> longer adequately dealt with. On the long run, it will be as
> damaging as before.

Oh, Andrew, SO? Without knowing any details of this case (because you didn't provide any - not even what this company produces), I would suggest that this example is more evidence of the limitations of the operating within the boundaries of the law. Wreck the factory! No more pollution! If the company claims insurance, and builds another factory, then WRECK THAT ONE TOO! Soon enough it won't be able to get insurance! Okay?

[Kirstie]

> Point is: do you think that eating meat is indeed murder, and
> that it *should* therefore be considered "immoral"
> (and perhaps, illegal)? I think that on this level, every
> opinion has to be heard before we accept the premisses. Once
> they are accepted, then indeed not every opinion is equally
> valid. But before that point is reached, ... there's need of
> some serious debate.

i'm really torn on this one. I believe that everyone should have the right to make their own choices but I do feel that meat is murder. I feel that it is damaging to another living creature, which may mean there should possibly be a law against it. It angers me that in the US it's illegal to kill a bald headed eagle but other animals can be killed all the time because profit comes quickly when they are (i.e. McDonalds and any place where meat is sold). Maybe it's because of the symbolism attached to the bald headed eagle but then that tells me we are a nation more concerned with symbolism than the true right of the animals which inhabit it. It is a verythin line to walk. I usually say when people ask me, "Well, for me it is wrong. For me eating meat is murder" but I don't know how valuable that is.

oh and another thing that angers me (this is a bit off topic but I've had it on my mind for awhile) is people who say that they love animals and eat meat-people who are against animal cruelty but then eat a hamburger. Animal cruelty to me is not just some incident where a cat is drowned (although that is animal cruelty) but it can also be what you put on your plate. I don't think one should say they love animals unless they are a vegetarian. I'm so sick of the people that rant against these incidents in the newspaper and still eat meat.

as far as the violence issue, I agree that it at times in history has been necesary. There is also a difference between violence and self defence and I think that some of the time when activists (think the black civil rights movement) do get violent, they do so because their basic rights have been taken away (or were never given to them) and they feel it necesary to fight back. But that is of course much different than the abortion clinic bombers who are, in my opinion, seriously misguided and dangerous people. I do agree with the statement that in the long run you've got to get people to change their minds though in order to get to the route of the evil.

Kirstie

[Andrew]

> What do you mean by "we now say that it is wrong"?
> Although you say that you firmly beleive that treating Jews in
> this manner IS wrong (i.e. now), are you therefore implying that
> under Nazi rule, because these things were officially
> sanctioned, they could not meaningfully be described as morally
> wrong THEN?

a majority of people indeed THEN thought it was morally justified. I NOW say it was morally wrong THEN as well, as most people do NOW. I don't know what I would have said then. I hope I would have said no.

> I'm not being facile. I find it unlikely that this is what you
> think - but if you don't, then I can't see what your point is
> here. Read again what you have written above. It is a statement
> of basic historical fact (even if the date is slightly dodgy),
> that few people don't already know. You're not saying anything
> in particular.

I'm saying it's not anti-nazi attacks that saved a lot of Jews. Most of the clear acts of violence against the Nazis triggered large scale repraisals - read: slaughtering of civilians.

> Well, for the most part, animals are not rescued by people
> attempting to otherthrow their particular government. Once more,
> what is your point?

It does not change, my point. I say that violence in the long run does not solve the problem. It temporarily allieviates, and I'd hope it would be able to prevent, but I fear that it generally does not even consider the point of prevention in the long run.

> Why write "The Jews were not rescued by people who tried to
> overthrow the nazi regime"? Some were! Some weren't! A
> point, please!

Yes, sure, but WHY??? Why were they rescued? In order to overthrow nazist regimes, because they were considered prisoners of war and should thus be freed, or because it was racial discrimination? Few pages of history are clear on this matter - and the Papon case in France showed very well that the issue is confusing. Papon (and that is why he got honours from the French Resistance) repeated times and times again that he SAVED French Resistant Fighthers (that's true), and that therefore he acted AGAINST the German regime. But he also deported thousands of Jews - and refused to admit responsibilities.

> And let's stop our discussion of the holocaust as soon as
> possible if you're going to continue to make ridiculous
> statements regarding the likes of Papon. Far from being part of
> the resistance, Papon was the Vichy collaborationist regime's
> number two official in the Bordeaux region and supervisor of its
> Service for Jewish Questions! Come on!

And he was honored by the Resistance as well. I DID NOT SAY NOR WRITE Papon was a Resistant. Read the text I wrote, will you?

> Hmm...

> That would be sweet, but useless. I would prefer if you could
> give me an abundance of replies to these letters from the Nazi
> authorities, ageeing to these people's demands to liberate the
> Jews. Do you have an abundance of these, then?

The Nazis did not reply to every letter, why would you think that? They kept track of the people who sent them, filed the names, and got spies on many of them. In some cases, however, they did agree. You may study the case of Michael (Misha) Hillesum, for example. He was granted to return to Amsterdam after being sent to a detention camp in Holland first. He refused to go, since his parents were not allowed to accompany him. And he was not the only one who was granted a little bit of humanity thanks to the effort of people who in the end risked their own life.

> I love this idea of asking the Nazis to provide some nice
> blankets for the people who were about to be gassed to death!
> You're not serious! Hmm, maybe it is a good idea. Instead of
> trying to stop animal testing, I might politely request that the
> research companies make sure that beagles, after being forced to
> swallow bleach day after day, be given a tasty dog-biscuit to
> make up for it!

Not in the concentration camps, but in the detention camps and on transport.
Do you really KNOW anything about it? Do you really believe it was all done at once? There were detention camps, concentration camps, work camps with semi-liberty, and extermination camps. And most countries confiscated private houses, schools, to lock them up.

> You'll have to be more specific than that, I'm afraid, otherwise
> this is meaningless.

There are attested testimonials of soldiers (German - you get it?) who helped ... not escape, but in terms of providing that little bit of comfort (blankets, food, water). Take the case of Belgium: a country that was split in Flemish who supported Nazi occupation because the nazis supported the Flemish case, but those very same people did not collaborate by giving up addresses of Jews or where jews were hidden. They dissociated the political case from the humanitarian case. They'd support the Nazis, but not the extermination of the Jews.

> I don't see how this is any way relevant. People are strange,
> and selfish, for sure. So what?

It is relevant because it once more shows that even though the jewish tragedy was known, few were really sympathetic with the Jews in principle. It was like "we won the war, you are saved now, go back home". This to illustrate the fact that many who survived the camps when they were liberated had to travel through large parts of Europe to what was once their home. But while travelling, they were not always welcome; and once they got in their home town, they were no more welcome - because they were considered as our modern "migrants". It means that if the aim is not true, do we have to be happy with the result because of the result?

> Of course, and this is sad. But nothing is perfect, and the last
> Jew left in Europe would be cruelly killed long before "the
> machinery of these crimes was fully understood". The use of
> direct action does not preclude the calmer measures that you
> (and me, too!) advocate.

No. But I don't see the need to justify direct violent action BECAUSE it does not preclude other ways of taking measures.

> It does, but, again, so what? Argument very often blinds people
> from seeing what they are really, in effect, arguing for.

You don't think that should be avoided, then?

> That's usually the case. But why should care "be taken not
> to justify the violence"? We both have just justified the
> violence! If you've simply made a typing error, and you meant to
> write "justify violence" (i.e. in general), then I
> can't disagree. If not, tell me what you mean.

It should not be justified. Acknowledged, that's what I did. Not justified. I would admit to be wrong in doing so. If you were to kill someone in an act of self-defense - I would acknowledge the causes, but that does not justify anything, for me. Clear?

> Yes. Yours is the method that will clinch the deal, so to speak.
> But that is a long way off.

not necessarily.

> Acts of direct action will, firstly,
> cause the issue to be seriously discussed.

again, not necessarily.

> When it is,
> negotiation can mostly take over.

sure. And what are we negociating for? For a company, "limiting the nuisance", for an activist "saving lives". I don't find that to be compatible goals, though. Sure, the effects count, but they don't necessarily have the right foundations.

> Secondly, when you say that it
> "works temporarily", we mustn't forget to mention that
> in this context 'working temporarily' means ending actual
> suffering that is happening NOW, saving a real life that would
> be lost NOW. Other lives may well be threatened elsewhere, and
> in the future. Then we must do the same elsewhere, and in the
> future.

That is nice, but running behind the facts.

> Oh, Andrew, SO? Without knowing any details of this case
> (because you didn't provide any - not even what this company
> produces), I would suggest that this example is more evidence of
> the limitations of the operating within the boundaries of the
> law. Wreck the factory! No more pollution! If the company claims
> insurance, and builds another factory, then WRECK THAT ONE TOO!
> Soon enough it won't be able to get insurance! Okay?

They make coatings (paints) for all kinds of metal plates. It involves a lot of chemicals, and the waste (water) is polluted.
Oh, yes, wreck them. They'll move out to a place where they can go on undisturbed. Good, huh?

[Somny]

Does anyone
> think animal activists actually make a difference and change
> people's minds?

...of course that makes a difference!!!!!! day by day more people want to know about animal rights and things could be worst now. hopeful we have kind souls out there working and enlighten people. sometimes a person just need some help, cause this same person is just a victim of their own ignorance.

[Andrew]

> i'm really torn on this one. I believe that everyone should have
> the right to make their own choices but I do feel that meat is
> murder. I feel that it is damaging to another living creature,
> which may mean there should possibly be a law against it.

Kirstie,
I don't think that just anyone on any topic has the right to make their own choices, much depends on which issues we are talking about, and let’s hope they won’t get confused. As to the question of eating meat, I won’t be able to give any specific answer – after all I consider this still very much part of a broad public debate that is not yet really happening – and the only thing I can say is that out of respect for the animals I cannot eat them – I wish there were sound arguments to support this, and favor a more decisive stance (call it law) in this matter, but …
As far as eating meat is concerned, I agree with you that it is at present a matter of choice.
Anyway, I think it’s worth to try to point out a few directions our thoughts can take in order to try to come to terms with it.

About equating eating meat with murder - I find that really a potentially “dangerous” argument, “dangerous” since I fail to see that without further argumentation it actually serves the cause of the animals.
The chain of responsibility between actually killing the animal and eating a steak is so very much stretched that one really has to be more careful. If not, you end up in pointless cases - example: if in my country the Parliament voted to send troops to the Balkans, Somalia, East Timor, Irak (...), and it turns out that they indeed killed innocent people, am I then also a murderer?
I mean … let’s take care of the argumentation. (And no, I don’t have any problem with the fact you FEEL about it in this way – I do want to exclude however that it only becomes a matter of “feel” if we want to state things in these strong terms, for the sake of not making the point look rather ridiculous).

> It
> angers me that in the US it's illegal to kill a bald headed
> eagle but other animals can be killed all the time because
> profit comes quickly when they are (i.e. McDonalds and any place
> where meat is sold). Maybe it's because of the symbolism
> attached to the bald headed eagle but then that tells me we are
> a nation more concerned with symbolism than the true right of
> the animals which inhabit it. It is a verythin line to walk. I
> usually say when people ask me, "Well, for me it is wrong.
> For me eating meat is murder" but I don't know how valuable
> that is.

it certainly is valuable - though I think much depends on how you make your point. If there's no further debate, I fear the discussion indeed rests upon statements of different beliefs only. And again I don’t believe you can impose belief on anyone, the matter has to be discussed, and we all have to try to convince people, by taking the path of argumentation. You have to take people seriously if you want to convince them of your arguments. Once more, I find it very hard indeed to find valid arguments that are compelling enough to allow us to expect in the near future a country to adopt real “vegetarian” laws or rules of conduct. As matters stand, it seems to me that it is neither morally wrong nor morally right to eat meat.
Eagles vs. chickens?
I do believe that the cases are very complex. But in general, the distinction made in the US between killing a bald headed eagle and killing a cow is the same as the one made in India between killing a cow and killing a monkey. Is it a thin line? I would agree that, for the Indians, it is a thin line. There is no factual reason or argument that picks out the cow and not any other animal as sacred, and thus protected.
For the US, quite a number of animals are protected species, and there are serious (scientific and other) arguments to support that. The line here is not so thin. Luckily. Because it opens the way to recognition of more animals as protected – there’s no chance that other animals in India will become sacred, and thus protected. As far as I know.

> oh and another thing that angers me (this is a bit off topic but
> I've had it on my mind for awhile) is people who say that they
> love animals and eat meat-people who are against animal cruelty
> but then eat a hamburger. Animal cruelty to me is not just some
> incident where a cat is drowned (although that is animal
> cruelty) but it can also be what you put on your plate. I don't
> think one should say they love animals unless they are a
> vegetarian. I'm so sick of the people that rant against these
> incidents in the newspaper and still eat meat.

it is not off topic at all, I think it goes to the heart of the matter.
You posted before that you decided to be a vegetarian because you realized you would never eat your cat. I find it very funny and as an honest testimony even charming, but don’t see well how this argument would convince others. I mean, I would not marry my mother, but that doesn’t force me into celibacy. I mean it’s a dangerous use of logic to infer anything from a negative premisse.
Rephrasing the problem in a positive way, I think it may amount to this question: “Can you love animals and still eat them?”
The point is that there is hardly ever any relation whatsoever between the animal that got slaughtered and the person who eats meat. Increase that, and meat consumption will drop considerably. Again, this is a matter of “feeling” only, and I regret that these are apparently the only arguments to rely on. Meat nowadays is presented as a finished product, like a can of beer. People buy it and consume it. Few really establish the link between their lamb chop and the animal kept in a stable in order to get fat fast and develop few muscles. If you fail to see the link, I think it’s understandable that you may for example work as vet yet not be vegetarian.
Morrissey’s “Meat is murder” is very apt as slogan to draw the attention to the fact that there’s indeed an animal behind the Tbone steak and to incite people to think about the way animals are treated and moulded into mere production and consumption data, but it does not necessarily force you into vegetarianism by force or reasoning.

> as far as the violence issue, I agree that it at times in
> history has been necesary. There is also a difference between
> violence and self defence and I think that some of the time when
> activists (think the black civil rights movement) do get
> violent, they do so because their basic rights have been taken
> away (or were never given to them) and they feel it necesary to
> fight back. But that is of course much different than the
> abortion clinic bombers who are, in my opinion, seriously
> misguided and dangerous people. I do agree with the statement
> that in the long run you've got to get people to change their
> minds though in order to get to the route of the evil.

the violence topic … I agree that it has been used in the past, it proved successful in some cases, unsuccessful in others. The question here again is whether the amount of violence is indeed proportional with the goals that are set and reached.
I surely understand that people turn to violence, and why they do so. But even if the causes are just (moral), or even legal, does that mean that violence per sé is justified? It might even be, if all other means have proved unsuccessful – but it’s a terrible task to check whether indeed all other means have been put to good use. I find that the implications of what we say and do should be true in aim and origin. Killing a congressman to bring a point onto the political agenda is in my view not a correct way of proceeding. If indeed it succeeds, the violence is yet not justified. You can only say that it served its purpose; the point is whether it was justified to make it serve that purpose. Destroying a storage of leather in order to protect animal rights again is not targeted well enough. Releasing monkeys from a science lab will save the monkeys, but it’s unlikely it will cause a ban on using monkeys for experiments.
What is generally really much more effective, is showing pictures of ill-treated animals, exposing cases of abuse, neglect torture …to the general public. As the Meat is Murder slogan, it gets people to think. I do wish there will be more, some day.

Andrew.

[greasetea]

Now that was the biggest pile of mother's milkshakes I ever read. Who needs sleeping pills or a xyclon B chamber when you have dolts like you writing such boring drivel.

Meat is murder, meat is murder..yes yes. Why don't you die too? People sicken me and I wish I had posion cum so i could unleash it all over twats like you ya picklejuice douching ratinfested gigolo.

[Kirstie]

>The point is that there is hardly ever any relation whatsoever
> between the animal that got slaughtered and the person who eats
> meat. Increase that, and meat consumption will drop

It's just so obvious to me but yeah you are right. I think everyone should take a tour of a slaughterhouse before they make a decision on whether to eat meat or not.

But then again, look at all the hunters out there who definitely see the connection and eat deer even when there is enough in their cupboards (most of the time) to go without killing an innocent animal.

I don't know which is worse in this case-the people that are completely ignorant about it and just shut it out of their minds that
their hamburger is a cow or the people that fully understand the connection between the two.

Kirstie

[Andrew]

> It's just so obvious to me but yeah you are right. I think
> everyone should take a tour of a slaughterhouse before they make
> a decision on whether to eat meat or not.

I think that would be good but I have been doing that and it's a shame to see how the people at the slaughterhouse use these vicious tactics of "animal care" to profile themselves. On one occasion, the guide was so painfully enthusiastic about his job that you almost thought they were actually SAVING the animals. "We are professional, and the animals here are treated well", and other babbling of the worst kind. The public that comes for a visit then thinks "Oh yes, it's all quite painless and clean and stress-reducing" and soothe their bad conscience.
I first thought that showing videos of how animals really live, how they evolve and adapt was another way of creating a more respectful attitude towards the animals. But then it turned out that many documentaries shown are set up: they lock a number of lions in a closed precinct, enter an antelope and let the hunt begin. Nice pictures, but yet again, misleading. Very disturbing practices. And none of them seems to instill the required amount of respect.
I agree that our very remote ancestors had a right to eat meat - but in these millions of years of evolution, much effort has been put on making our understanding of the world better to suit our needs, the amount of effort spent on understanding the needs and likes of other species is of a much more recent date, alas. Cruel, but people started showing more respect for the pig once they found out that we can use a number of its organs for transplantation.

> But then again, look at all the hunters out there who definitely
> see the connection and eat deer even when there is enough in
> their cupboards (most of the time) to go without killing an
> innocent animal.

I really am not sure about what HAS to be done - the problem goes well beyond a personal approach (what COULD be done, is indeed a personal approach, as you are indeed doing!). For example, you have people who do respect animals, are even trained to protect them, yet they do eat meat. They do see the connection between what's on their plate, and what's in the field, but the mere number of cattle turns the animals into a indistinguishable mob, and all the good feelings no longer seem to be at play. On top of that, you even have people who have a kind of personal relation with an animal, treating it almost like a pet - but then when time has come, kill it and eat it. It is very hard to argue on rational grounds in those cases; more often than not it remains at a level of personal engagement. That is not bad, the question however is whether we can go further.
As far as hunters are concerned, they are really horrible. I can't understand how people can even try to promote hunting using rational argumentation. This is people who consider killing an animal as an outdoor sport activity. Or even as a "necessity". It should be no surprise that even when they see the connection, they don't bother.

> I don't know which is worse in this case-the people that are
> completely ignorant about it and just shut it out of their minds
> that
> their hamburger is a cow or the people that fully understand the
> connection between the two.

I would hope that those who are completely ignorant about it can one day change their mind, or at least come to understand. There's hope. For the other ones, much more has to be done. But they are precisely the category where we should be able to make the difference.

Thanks for your input, Kirstie!

Andrew.