RE: Re: Setting the record straight / How we kill what we eat

July 14, 2005

RE: Re: Setting the record straight...

....I think a lot of veganism and vegetarianism comes from people being so

disconnected with what it means to kill for food.....

I know some people who are pagan reconstructionists....

ly, although I'm not a reconstructionist, I love the idea. I would like

for all our " animals with faces " to be killed this way. Not necessarily pagan -

only pagans would need to do that, but *sacred* and concious.

===============

,

About 10 years ago I visited some pagan friends in California. One of the men

had just butchered a lamb. He cuddled it in his arms and sang to it just before

he drove a knife cleanly through its throat. He told me that the animal had

absolutely no fear, and looked him straight in the eye just before it was

killed.

Of all the grass-fed, natural, organic meat I've eaten, this lamb was absolutely

the most delicious I have ever tasted. The energy was great -- it felt as though

I were eating some raw food, still alive with enzymes.

How we kill and honor what we eat matters. It was so evident to me with this one

experience, I don't think I will forget it.

Best,

Nenah

July 14, 2005

Re: Setting the record straight / How we kill what we eat

Dear Nenah:

I was particularly touched by your account so that I felt tears

coming to my eyes. One second later, however, I was reminded of ...

how can I put it? Because I don't want by any means to disparage the

beauty of your experience ... the irony of the situation. Singing to

someone you are about to kill, as if it were a lullaby. Well, I

couldn't help remembering an expression we have in our language, for

which I ignore the English equivalent: the tears of a crocodile, who

is said to cry while killing his prey.

Thanks for sharing this and please don't be upset by my untimely

interference.

Best regards,

José

==============

,

I am not offended at all, and I don't perceive what you wrote as

interfering.

I used to get very upset that I needed to have animals die so that I could

live. But, as has been said by others on this list (as I recall), plants

have consciousness too. This has been proven by Clive Backster and others

who have hooked up lie detectors to plants and seen the plants' responses to

our thoughts and feelings and intentions. Therefore, why do we get upset

when we kill animals and not plants?

Animals have more of a discernible conscousness, and can respond to us in

ways that we understand. So personally, I relate to animals as beings who

are like me more than I relate to plants as life that is like me.

Nevertheless, regarding the killing of animals...I have learned to make

peace with this. I try to remember to give thanks to the animal before I

kill or eat it. Killing other life forms so that we can sustain ourselves is

the way of the world right now.

Best,

Nenah

July 15, 2005

>

> > I want to pipe in here. We raise and slaughter our animals. In every

> > case, with every animal that is destined to go into the freezer, I

> > start on the first day telling them their fate. I tell them they will

> > be honored in recipes. I do not want to lie to my food!

> > >

> > > In the meantime, I tell them, they will have a wonderful life here

> > and be treated with respect. On the day that they are to be

> > slaughtered, I tell them what is going to happen and thank them for

> > their service to us.

> > >

> > > To me, it is an important aspect of raising food animals humanely.

> > >

> > > Sharon in Vt

> >

> > Sharon, that is beautiful...i'm so glad you posted this.

> >

> > laura

>

Sorry - sometimes I think that this list is so full of flakiness that I may give

up and become a vegetarian.

July 15, 2005

> Sorry - sometimes I think that this list is so full of flakiness that

> I may give up and become a vegetarian.

Not respecting your food animals results in factory farming. The Native

Americans built (several) whole culture(s) out of respecting their food

animals. I don't really see what's flaky about that. It strikes me as

one important way that cultures can stay in touch with sustainability.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

> > Sorry - sometimes I think that this list is so full of flakiness that

> > I may give up and become a vegetarian.

>

> Not respecting your food animals results in factory farming. The Native

> Americans built (several) whole culture(s) out of respecting their food

> animals. I don't really see what's flaky about that. It strikes me as

> one important way that cultures can stay in touch with sustainability.

>

> Lynn S.

Respecting animals so that you treat them humanely is one thing. Talking to them

so that they understand you're going to kill and eat them, but that you

appreciate their " service " is another. It is not necessary to believe that

animals understand English in order to treat them humanely, is it?

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

>

> > > Sorry - sometimes I think that this list is so full of flakiness that

> > > I may give up and become a vegetarian.

> >

> > Not respecting your food animals results in factory farming. The Native

> > Americans built (several) whole culture(s) out of respecting their food

> > animals. I don't really see what's flaky about that. It strikes me as

> > one important way that cultures can stay in touch with sustainability.

> >

> > Lynn S.

>

> The way I see it: if it gets a rise out of Gene, you're doing

> *something* right.

> B.

>

> /welcome back, Gene

>

Of course, my points are always incorrect. What better way to point that out

than by simply stating it?

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

> Hello to you:

>

> Since I feel in part responsible for this " flakiness " I want to

> respond to this.

>

> I take " flaky " to mean " eccentric " in your piece. However, from my

> point of view, what you call " flakiness " could also be translated

> as " sensitiveness " . I don't see how this could annoy you, moreover

> because nobody seems to want to impose it as the ultimate truth.

>

Well, I would say that 'flaky' is kind of like 'eccentric' on a bad day, but ok.

I think that one can be sensitive without being flaky, and one can be flaky

without being sensitive, so obviously it just comes down to whether the

expectation that cows understand the subtleties of English grammar is flaky or

sensitive. These are not mutually exclusive, mind you. A sensitive person may

still be flaky. I don't think that such intellectual discussion with cows is

insensitive by any means.

> Peole also talk to plants, and there are even those who believe that

> trees have a soul and shouldn't be cut down without a ritual or

> something.

>

There are people who believe all sorts of things, and simply that fact doesn't

mean that some of these beliefs aren't flaky in the particular context that

people might believe them. In most of these cases, I doubt that the people

actually believe that the plants understand the words and concepts used. If a

person did believe that the tree understood English (apparently better than many

people) I would consider them rather flakey, yes. If this was within the context

of a culture in which this grew out of an ancient spiritual belief, well no. not

quite the same.

> This may sound weird if you are a novice in these matters or a

> materialist, which is your right of course.

>

this may sound as if you simply don't understand the point being made, which is

YOUR right, of course.

> Nobody has the right to convert you, and we have even to thank you

> for your spontaneous reaction and courage to put your cards on the

> table.

>

> But at the same time you sort of reminded me of the urchin in the

> fable by Andersen - The Emperor's New Clothes - who called out to all

> the people that the Emperor was in fact parading naked.

>

> What Andersen doesn't tell us is that the boy who made all the

> subjects laugh at the vain Emperor was probably wearing rags, and

> rags can be more offensive than the naked body.

>

> And here is a good place for you to start, in case you decide to

> become a vegetarian: www.navs-online.org/

Thanks for your comments.

>

> Cheers,

>

July 15, 2005

> Respecting animals so that you treat them humanely is one thing.

> Talking to them so that they understand you're going to kill and eat

> them, but that you appreciate their " service " is another. It is not

> necessary to believe that animals understand English in order to treat

> them humanely, is it?

My feeling about it is that it's less important if the animals

understand you than your attitude. If a little ritual helps to set your

attitude, why not.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

> > Respecting animals so that you treat them humanely is one thing.

> > Talking to them so that they understand you're going to kill and eat

> > them, but that you appreciate their " service " is another. It is not

> > necessary to believe that animals understand English in order to treat

> > them humanely, is it?

>

> My feeling about it is that it's less important if the animals

> understand you than your attitude. If a little ritual helps to set your

> attitude, why not.

>

> Lynn S.

Well, if someone needs a ritual in order to treat animals humanely, that's fine,

because obviously it's better to treat them humanely than not. When such a

person starts to explain this ritual as if it's based on objective fact, then I

start thinking 'flakey'.

July 15, 2005

> Respecting animals so that you treat them humanely is one

> thing. Talking to them so that they understand you're going

> to kill and eat them, but that you appreciate their " service "

> is another. It is not necessary to believe that animals

> understand English in order to treat them humanely, is it?

The flaw in your underlying premise is that you assume that the

verbal/cognitive component of the communication is the only thing that is

being communicated.

Words are frequently the smallest information containing portion of any face

to face communication.

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

>

> > > > I want to pipe in here. We raise and slaughter our animals. In

> every

> > > > case, with every animal that is destined to go into the

> freezer, I

> > > > start on the first day telling them their fate. I tell them

> they will

> > > > be honored in recipes. I do not want to lie to my food!

> > > > >

> > > > > In the meantime, I tell them, they will have a wonderful life

> here

> > > > and be treated with respect. On the day that they are to be

> > > > slaughtered, I tell them what is going to happen and thank them

> for

> > > > their service to us.

> > > > >

> > > > > To me, it is an important aspect of raising food animals

> humanely.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sharon in Vt

> > > >

> > > > Sharon, that is beautiful...i'm so glad you posted this.

> > > >

> > > > laura

> > >

> > Sorry - sometimes I think that this list is so full of flakiness

> that I may give up and become a vegetarian.

> >

> sorry to offend you. laura

>

not offended.

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

>

> > > Sorry - sometimes I think that this list is so full of flakiness

> that

> > > I may give up and become a vegetarian.

> >

> > Not respecting your food animals results in factory farming. The

> Native

> > Americans built (several) whole culture(s) out of respecting their

> food

> > animals. I don't really see what's flaky about that. It strikes me as

> > one important way that cultures can stay in touch with sustainability.

> >

> > Lynn S.

> >

> >hear, hear. laura

>

Of course I said nothing at all even remotely implying that you shouldn't treat

animals humanely. But evoking Native Americans is always good for enlisting

emotional support.

July 15, 2005

On 7/15/05, implode7@... <implode

> > Not respecting your food animals results in factory farming. The Native

> > Americans built (several) whole culture(s) out of respecting their food

> > animals. I don't really see what's flaky about that. It strikes me as

> > one important way that cultures can stay in touch with sustainability.

> >

> > Lynn S.

> Respecting animals so that you treat them humanely is one thing. Talking to

> them so that they understand you're going to kill and eat them, but that you

> appreciate their " service " is another. It is not necessary to believe that

animals

> understand English in order to treat them humanely, is it?

I think you're misunderstanding the point. It's not a practical

measure meant to produce an explicit rational understanding between

the animal and the person. It's an attempt to regain the numinosity

and ritual that's been crucial to every human society's relationship

with nature (which was of course lost with the triumph of

materialism/rationalism/etc). It's a real and important part of the

human psyche, and to laugh it off or deny it doesn't change that. It

only guarantees that its inevitable welling up will be more violent

and more dangerous for the individual or the society.

As Lynn pointed out, loss of that numinosity provides the clear

rationale for factory farming (among myriad other symptoms that we all

know too well).

I'll just point to voluminous writings on the subject by people like

Carl Jung, Heinrich Zimmer, Marie-Louise Von Franz, etc, and leave it

at that.

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

> > Respecting animals so that you treat them humanely is one

> > thing. Talking to them so that they understand you're going

> > to kill and eat them, but that you appreciate their " service "

> > is another. It is not necessary to believe that animals

> > understand English in order to treat them humanely, is it?

>

> The flaw in your underlying premise is that you assume that the

> verbal/cognitive component of the communication is the only thing that is

> being communicated.

>

> Words are frequently the smallest information containing portion of any face

> to face communication.

>

The flaw in your underlying premise is that you assume that I don't understand

that. In which case someone could emphasize that they treat the animals

humanely, and even speak to them in a soft voice. However, the communication to

a cow in a soft voice talking about Barry Bonds, and the communication to a cow

thanking it for its service is functionally identical.

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

> On 7/15/05, implode7@... > > > Not respecting your food animals

results in factory farming. The Native

> > > Americans built (several) whole culture(s) out of respecting their food

> > > animals. I don't really see what's flaky about that. It strikes me as

> > > one important way that cultures can stay in touch with sustainability.

> > >

> > > Lynn S.

> > Respecting animals so that you treat them humanely is one thing. Talking to

> > them so that they understand you're going to kill and eat them, but that you

> > appreciate their " service " is another. It is not necessary to believe that

> animals

> > understand English in order to treat them humanely, is it?

>

> I think you're misunderstanding the point. It's not a practical

> measure meant to produce an explicit rational understanding between

> the animal and the person. It's an attempt to regain the numinosity

> and ritual that's been crucial to every human society's relationship

> with nature (which was of course lost with the triumph of

> materialism/rationalism/etc). It's a real and important part of the

> human psyche, and to laugh it off or deny it doesn't change that. It

> only guarantees that its inevitable welling up will be more violent

> and more dangerous for the individual or the society.

>

> As Lynn pointed out, loss of that numinosity provides the clear

> rationale for factory farming (among myriad other symptoms that we all

> know too well).

>

> I'll just point to voluminous writings on the subject by people like

> Carl Jung, Heinrich Zimmer, Marie-Louise Von Franz, etc, and leave it

> at that.

>

And I'll just point out that people who explain their relationship with cows as

one of explaining to the cows that they appreciate their service, when after

all, if there were the slightest hint of understanding by the cow, then killing

it and eating it would be quite a barbaric act. It is simply a ritual, and if it

makes someone feel better that's fine. But if someone explained to me as if

someone it was not so much a ritual for the human being, but for the cow, I'd

think it was rather strange. And I do. Sorry. I get some valuable info from this

list, but I'd sure as hell be embarassed to recommend it to friends, who almost

certainly who classify stuff like that as flakey. And it is just ridiculous to

believe that you have to explain to animals what you're going to do to them, in

order to treat them humanely. And is also just ridiculous to claim that we need

ritual in order to do so. I think that it's rational to do so.

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

>

> > > Respecting animals so that you treat them humanely is one

> > > thing. Talking to them so that they understand you're going

> > > to kill and eat them, but that you appreciate their " service "

> > > is another. It is not necessary to believe that animals

> > > understand English in order to treat them humanely, is it?

> >

> > The flaw in your underlying premise is that you assume that the

> > verbal/cognitive component of the communication is the only thing

> that is

> > being communicated.

> >

> > Words are frequently the smallest information containing portion of

> any face

> > to face communication.

>

> Hello Ron:

>

> Sorry this time. I have just sent an " empty " reply. I happened to

> click on the send button before typing my answer.

>

> Here it is:

>

> I partly agree with you. It is not only through words that we

> communicate. Everything counts: the facial expression, the posture,

> the look, the tone, the pitch, tears, smiles, patting, etc...

> Sometimes you can even have an insight into what is being said in a

> foreign language if you can read all those elements, because they

> seem to be universal. Words, by the way, can often be deceiving, but

> all in all we need them - in the end. As a confirmation. As a

> ratification. That is why I think that words, while not being the

> only channel for communication, are the most important one.

>

> Perhaps the only significant exception for this is music. A great

> composer is able to convey a lot through sound, but then again he

> needs to give a name to his composition.

>

> So maybe what " implode7 " is trying to say isn't far-fetched or

> flawed. There is something in there.

>

> Welcome back.

>

> José

You make an interesting point about music, and being a musician, I am tempted to

raise the following off-topic question. Do you really think that a composer is

(necessarily) trying to convey something at all? Cannot the music be the

message?

July 15, 2005

As someone who talks to everything, I agree with Gene's basic point. We

can't hide our " guilt " by believing the animal understands it's going to be

killed for food. We have to kill knowing that's the last thing the animal

would want. That's the burden of a compassionate consciousness.

But I totally disagree with Gene about the meaning of " flakey " . Flakey

means you forget appointments and can't be relied on to fulfill

responsibilities and promises. My flakiness has nothing to do with the fact

that I talk to trees. I am rarely in the middle of an arborial conversation

when I forget to do something.

YR

Re: Re: Setting the record straight / How we kill what we

eat

-------------- Original message --------------

> On 7/15/05, implode7@... > > > Not respecting your food animals

results in factory farming. The Native

> > > Americans built (several) whole culture(s) out of respecting their

food

> > > animals. I don't really see what's flaky about that. It strikes me

as

> > > one important way that cultures can stay in touch with

sustainability.

> > >

> > > Lynn S.

> > Respecting animals so that you treat them humanely is one thing.

Talking to

> > them so that they understand you're going to kill and eat them, but

that you

> > appreciate their " service " is another. It is not necessary to believe

that

> animals

> > understand English in order to treat them humanely, is it?

>

> I think you're misunderstanding the point. It's not a practical

> measure meant to produce an explicit rational understanding between

> the animal and the person. It's an attempt to regain the numinosity

> and ritual that's been crucial to every human society's relationship

> with nature (which was of course lost with the triumph of

> materialism/rationalism/etc). It's a real and important part of the

> human psyche, and to laugh it off or deny it doesn't change that. It

> only guarantees that its inevitable welling up will be more violent

> and more dangerous for the individual or the society.

>

> As Lynn pointed out, loss of that numinosity provides the clear

> rationale for factory farming (among myriad other symptoms that we all

> know too well).

>

> I'll just point to voluminous writings on the subject by people like

> Carl Jung, Heinrich Zimmer, Marie-Louise Von Franz, etc, and leave it

> at that.

>

And I'll just point out that people who explain their relationship with

cows as one of explaining to the cows that they appreciate their service,

when after all, if there were the slightest hint of understanding by the

cow, then killing it and eating it would be quite a barbaric act. It is

simply a ritual, and if it makes someone feel better that's fine. But if

someone explained to me as if someone it was not so much a ritual for the

human being, but for the cow, I'd think it was rather strange. And I do.

Sorry. I get some valuable info from this list, but I'd sure as hell be

embarassed to recommend it to friends, who almost certainly who classify

stuff like that as flakey. And it is just ridiculous to believe that you

have to explain to animals what you're going to do to them, in order to

treat them humanely. And is also just ridiculous to claim that we need

ritual in order to do so. I think that it's rational to do so.

July 15, 2005

-------------- Original message --------------

> As someone who talks to everything, I agree with Gene's basic point. We

> can't hide our " guilt " by believing the animal understands it's going to be

> killed for food. We have to kill knowing that's the last thing the animal

> would want. That's the burden of a compassionate consciousness.

>

> But I totally disagree with Gene about the meaning of " flakey " . Flakey

> means you forget appointments and can't be relied on to fulfill

> responsibilities and promises. My flakiness has nothing to do with the fact

> that I talk to trees. I am rarely in the middle of an arborial conversation

> when I forget to do something.

>

> YR

- I think that in my multitasking frenzy here I sent a blank response.

You raise a good point about language. There are no meanings of words other than

how they are used. My encounters with variants of 'flake' and 'flakey' are that

one can speak of having 'flaked' - which would fit your usage above. But

generally, when I hear people being spoken of as flakes, the implication is a

bit different. But that's just my experience. It can be used both ways, I guess.

July 15, 2005

Re: Setting the record straight / How we kill what we eat

> You make an interesting point about music, and being a musician, I

am tempted to raise the following off-topic question. Do you really

think that a composer is (necessarily) trying to convey something at

all? Cannot the music be the message?

>

July 15, 2005

Re: Setting the record straight / How we kill what we eat

>

> Of course, my points are always incorrect. What better way to point

that out than by simply stating it?

>

" Gene,

I don't think you're always wrong--not at all! I just think you're

usually ill-tempered. I meant it when I said welcome back. I, for

one, missed you.

B. "

ah - sorry - I misconstrued as sarcasm. And true - I was ANNOYED at the

posts I commented on, so I suppose that my ill temperedness defined the tone

of the post. ON the other hand, I wanted to express my annoyance, perhaps

simply as a poignant contrast to the touching scene of tenderly confiding to

a beast that you were going to slaughter it for dinner.

July 15, 2005

Re: Setting the record straight / How we kill what we eat

On 7/15/05, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> The flaw in your underlying premise is that you assume that I don't

> understand that. In which case someone could emphasize that they treat the

> animals humanely, and even speak to them in a soft voice. However, the

> communication to a cow in a soft voice talking about Barry Bonds, and the

> communication to a cow thanking it for its service is functionally

> identical.

" Wouldn't there be more subtle inflections in tone and nuances of

facial expression that are beyond our conscious control that are

affected by how WE understand what we're talking about? "

Well, perhaps, but you're losing the point (as usual?). The point isn't that

if you, in reality, loathe animals and wish that you could be torturing

them, there might be some possibility that they could sense your 'vibes',

but that the actual content is irrelevant as long as you feel this 'respect'

(I'm just not sure this is the correct word). And it is also true (isn't

it?) that I can actually enjoy killing animals because I hate them, and tell

them how much I appreciate their " service " to humans because I find it

amusing. This whole argument you're making is a distraction from the point,

and I won't get into a pointless, endless debate with you. You are capable

of understanding the subtleties here, so make an effort. I won't argue with

YOU.

July 16, 2005

implode7@... wrote:

> And I'll just point out that people who explain their relationship

> with cows as one of explaining to the cows that they appreciate their

> service, when after all, if there were the slightest hint of

> understanding by the cow, then killing it and eating it would be quite

> a barbaric act.

This statement really made the hairs stand up on my neck. I wouldn't

like the cow to understand what I was saying at all. However, this is

made me put myself in it's position. If there were some other

intelligent being that wanted to eat me and farmed me and explained it

all to me.....? eeew...how would I feel about that? I've tossed it

around in different scenarios and I think I would prefer the gentle

approach rather than finding myself at the end of a pistol (or whatever

method of killing), suddenly realising what is about to happen. I don't

know. Maybe I would want to be blissfully unaware. It's a close call.

Sheesh. Sorry for the flakeyness.

July 16, 2005

Re: Setting the record straight / How we kill what we eat

Interesting, but lambs are notorious for willingly going to

slaughter-- which is why the lamb is typologically associated with

Christ. My friend and I slaughtered one of his lambs together once.

We shot it in the head first, amidst all of the other lambs, and they

were running around together and after being shot-- a few seconds

later-- one of them just fell down. The other lambs didn't notice.

He went up to bleed the lamb. The others didn't notice. You would

expect them to fear someone whom they just witnessed kill one of their

herd, but they don't. It's like they're oblivious.

Chris

==============================

The experience I recounted contrasted greatly with another, this time

involving a local farmer. I selected a lamb I wanted, and the farmer had to

wrestle with it (there was no gun involved, just a knife). This lamb did not

go willingly at all, even at the beginning. I believe the animal sensed the

farmer's intention.

Did you ever see the film, and Me? It's about the

devastation and poverty of Flint, Michigan after the General Motors plant

shut down and moved to Mexico. , who grew up in Flint, filmed the

hardships of the townsfolk after this company, which they'd spent their

lives building up, screwed them. Anyway, in one scene interviews a

woman who took to raising rabbits for food in order to make some money. She

is holding the rabbit quietly, talking to the camera, and then mentions that

shortly she is going to skin the rabbit she is holding and petting.

Immediately the rabbit begins to bite her. " Stop that! " she exclaims. I

remember, when seeing this movie in the theatre years ago, being struck by

the animal's intelligence and its not-coincidental aggression on learning

that it would soon be someone's dinner. The movie is available on DVD now

and you can check it out.

One theme is pretty clear, as has been discussed on this list regarding many

other topics: there are variations in how individuals respond.

Best,

Nenah

July 16, 2005

I think music as the language of emotion. It bypasses the language centers

of the brain (except in trained muscisians - we get to use our whole brains!

<G>) and stimulates the same parts of the brain that are used to feel

emotion.

I can't think of any other reason needed to write music other than to have

the experience of hearing it and feeling what the music stirs. Or at least,

that's the only reason needed to make the practice of writing music any fun.

The other reason is to make a living. If someone gets both needs met writing

music, more power to them!

But other than that pesky, mercenary, " need to eat " reason <g>, the need to

write music is always to convey that non-linguistic experience that the

music produces. Just because it's not in ordinary language doesn't mean

music lacks conveyable meaning just by itself. (And I recognize that now we

are quibbling over language, but that is often the case in disagreements.)

YR

> You make an interesting point about music, and being a musician, I

am tempted to raise the following off-topic question. Do you really

think that a composer is (necessarily) trying to convey something at

all? Cannot the music be the message?

>

July 16, 2005

Re: Re: Setting the record straight / How we kill what we

eat

implode7@... wrote:

> And I'll just point out that people who explain their relationship

> with cows as one of explaining to the cows that they appreciate their

> service, when after all, if there were the slightest hint of

> understanding by the cow, then killing it and eating it would be quite

> a barbaric act.

" This statement really made the hairs stand up on my neck. I wouldn't