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

July 16, 2005

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

> >

> [implode said] 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.

>

" I've been called numerous things over the course of my life, but

flaky, never. lol.

Anyway, I never said that my telling the animals their fate was a

ritual. Basically, I just don't want to lie to my food. And it does

make me feel better about killing them. It seems rather obvious to me

that if we respect the crops we raise, be it vegetables or animals,

then the final product is more healthy.

Flaky, indeed.

Sharon in VT "

The notion of telling the truth to an animal presumes that they understand

what you're saying. In any case, if you don't say anything to the cow and

then kill it, you haven't lied to it, both because the cow doesn't

understand, and as such invalidates the whole notion of 'honesty' towards

them, and because not saying anything and then killing them is not lying.

Then there is the fact that you can 'respect' (still not really the right

word, but why both arguing this point) nature without telling it what you're

going to do to it. Your implication, somehow, that by not telling nature

literally what we're going to do with it, we are not 'respecting' it and

lying to it, and making its final product 'unhealthy' is absolutely

ludicrous. Ok, wacky. We can use that word.

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

<UL>

<LI><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A> online</LI>

<LI><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL>

<PRE><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A>

Idol

MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

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 "

Well, the linguistic part is quibbling, but on the other hand I think that

it is interesting (well, maybe to some). What I strongly disagree with is

your generalization that 'the need to write music is ALWAYS to convey ... " .

How do you know this? How can you possibly speak for all musicians? That

part is not a quibble.

And I just think that the rest of it is, well, wrong. I may simply write the

music, or play the music, because I enjoy it. Anything beyond that is an

intellectualisation (sp?) of the process, and fills a need to 'explain' the

process or justify it. IN some cases, sure, people may need such a

justification, and assign this purpose to the process ('I'm writing this

piece to convey or describe how I felt about x, or I'm writing this piece

about they way that cows actually understand people and resent the fact that

they thank us that they're going to eat them').

In some cases, if the person makes the music while in a certain mood, the

music may evoke that mood to them later on, the same way the smell of

scallops may evoke the memory of the television exploding that one

time...but I think that the mistake is somehow believing that this 'meaning'

is somehow bound up in the music. There are two levels here to what is going

on - the process of writing the music, and the associations that we make.

The music doesn't have 'meaning' in the same sense that words convey

meaning. If they convey it to you, they may convey something entirely

different to someone else, and both experiences are perfectly valid. This is

because there really is no conveyance at all, it is just association. Some

music is more evocative than other music, but not because it 'conveys' more

'meaning'.

> 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

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 "

So, then if the animals understand from our words that we're going to kill

and eat them, we should NOT tell them about it then.

If animals understand that we are raising them for the express purpose of

killing them and eating them, then it is wrong to do so, when we can survive

without doing so. Despite the fact that I think that a diet with meat is

certainly healthier, I would become a vegetarian if I thought that animals

lived in this kind of terror, and I certainly wouldn't tell them that I was

going to eat them if I thought that they understood. I find this whole

discussion to be rather bizarre.

July 16, 2005

>

> > 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.

>

" , you're not flakey. i consider being called 'flakey' is

judgmental. one man's flake is another person's kind, loving,

compassionate person, and to me you are kind, loving and

compassionate. i'm sure it's easier to close up one's heart and mind

and harden them to prevent any feeling at all when killing an

animal...and anyway, guys seem to be less emotional than women

anyway, so maybe this is more a gal thing that guys can't understand.

anyway, i for one really appreciate and admire your point of view,

and i'm sure i'm not the only one!

God bless you.

laura "

This is absolutely hilarious reasoning. I assure you, that there are plenty

of intelligent, rational, women who would find that the notion that you need

to tell animals that you're going to eat them or you're lying them and not

respecting them, and that if you don't believe this that you are 'hardened'

and that this is a 'male' thing, totally ridiculous.

This is why I would never, never, recommend this list to anyone to whom I

wanted to educate on this kind of diet. My educated friends, who are

environmentalists, and compassionate human beings, would find this

absolutely hysterical, and pretty much discount this list as full of flakes,

not to be taken seriously. At times, it really makes me question the whole

notion of eating this way...luckily for me, I had already come to these

dietary conclusions.

One can have a respect for nature, and be humane with believing the

gibberish that I'm seeing here.

July 16, 2005

You speak of manners, yet you shout throughout your entire post.

I think that, yes, if I am being silly, I'd prefer that someone point it

out. Someone may be a good person, and have some pretty wacko ideas.

This is a list, which I presume, is supposed to be about a way of eating

that has a rational and scientific foundation. As such, when people post

things that call the credibility of the list in general into question, I

think that they should be called on it.

You, or anyone else can worry about lying to animals or trees, that

confessing one's plan to an animal before slaughtering it will make it taste

better (perhaps this could be scientifically tested) and think that people

who think that this is nonsense are insensitive, male, boors, don't care

about nature.. Personally, I find this line of reasoning to be more

offensive than the notion that certain stuff, well, is just plain silly.

What do I really think about some of these ideas being expressed. Well, I've

said what I think, not out of any express purpose to be cruel. However, this

isn't just a personal discussion between friends, this is a public list,

where (in my opinion) notions that anyone who doesn't think that cows

understand English, and that not describing what one is about to do to them

is lying to them, and that such lying to animals makes them taste not as

good....is a typical male who is insensitive, and doesn't " respect " nature,

is just absolutely, fantastically, ridiculous, and sexist to boot.

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

>

> This is absolutely hilarious reasoning.

GLAD YOU FIND IT FUNNY. HOPE YOU GOT A LAUGH. IT'S IMPORTANT TO

LAUGH. IN FACT, I'M LAUGHING SO HARD RIGHT NOW I THINK I'M GONNA GO

THROW UP.

I assure you, that there are plenty

> of intelligent, rational, women who would find that the notion that

you need

> to tell animals that you're going to eat them or you're lying them

and not

> respecting them, and that if you don't believe this that you

are 'hardened'

> and that this is a 'male' thing, totally ridiculous.

I SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID ANYTHING. I HATE TO ARGUE. I JUST DON'T LIKE

NAME CALLING ON ANY LIST, MAYBE ESPECIALLY ON EMAIL LISTS. PEOPLE

DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE SERIOUS OR KIDDING OR GOOD NATUREDLY RIBBING AND

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL IF IT'S MEAN SPIRITED OR NOT. I'M JUST

WEARY OF MEAN SPIRITED PEOPLE IN GENERAL. THAT'S WHY I'M 50 AND A

SEMI HERMIT. I DON'T ENJOY BEING INSULTED AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE

ELSE DOES EITHER.

>

> This is why I would never, never, recommend this list to anyone to

whom I

> wanted to educate on this kind of diet.

GREAT, THEN DON'T RECOMMEND IT.

My educated friends, who are

> environmentalists, and compassionate human beings, would find this

> absolutely hysterical, and pretty much discount this list as full

of flakes,

> not to be taken seriously. At times, it really makes me question

the whole

> notion of eating this way...luckily for me, I had already come to

these

> dietary conclusions.

WHY DON'T YOU START YOUR OWN LIST, MODERATE IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU

CAN CONTROL WHAT POSTS GET POSTED AND THEN YOU CAN JUST PREVENT THE

FLAKEY PEOPLE SUCH AS MYSELF AND THE OTHER ONE OR TWO PEOPLE YOU

CALLED FLAKEY FROM POSTING. IT'S A FREE COUNTRY; YOU CAN DO THIS IF

YOU WANT TO.

EVERYONE IS IN A DIFFERENT PLACE, MENTALLY, EMOTIONALLY, SPIRITUALLY,

HUMANLY, INTELLECTUALLY. COMPASSION AND UNDERSTANDING AND LOVE ARE

SORELY LACKING IN THE WORLD AND JUDGEMENTALISM AND HATRED AND INSULTS

AND RUDENESS ARE RIFE. LIKE I SAID I'M 50 AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME

COMING TO GRIPS WITH THE FACT THAT THE WORLD IS AN UNPLEASANT PLACE

WITH HIGHLY UNPLEASANT PEOPLE; I TRY TO AVOID THEM LIKE THE PLAGUE.

WE NEED TO START TEACHING MANNERS IN PRESCHOOL. THE POINT OF MANNERS

IS TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL AT EASE, IN AWKWARD SITUATIONS, ETC. MANNERS

IS A KINDNESS. KINDNESS IS ALMOST LOST. IT'S ALMOST A LOST

CONCEPT. WE'VE LOST MANNERS AS A NATION, I BELIEVE, AND INSULTING

PEOPLE AND BEING RUDE IS BECOMING AN ACCEPTABLE PART OF OUR CULTURE

UNDER THE GUISE OF 'SELF EXPRESSION' OR FREE SPEECH OR SOMETHING.

OUR WORDS MATTER. WE CAN USE WORDS TO UPLIFT PEOPLE, ENCOURAGE

PEOPLE, SOOTH PEOPLE, HELP PEOPLE. WE CAN ALSO USE WORDS TO HURT

PEOPLE, MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE JERKS, AND MAKE THEM FEEL WORTHLESS AND

STUPID AND, OH, YEAH, FLAKEY. AND I GOTTA TELL YA, I'M REALLY TIRED,

I MEAN REALLY TIRED, WEARY, EXHAUSTED, OF THE LATTER NEGATIVE IMPACTS

IN GENERAL, DIRECTED TOWARD PEOPLE IN GENERAL.

WHATAVER HAPPENED TO THE GOLDEN RULE...TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WANT TO BE

TREATED.

DO YOU LIKE BEING CALLED FLAKEY? OH, THAT'S RIGHT, YOU'RE NOT

FLAKEY. EVER. YOU'RE A PERFECT PERSON, I'M SURE. I HAVE NO DOUBT.

DO YOU ENJOY BEING INSULTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM?

>

> One can have a respect for nature, and be humane with believing the

> gibberish that I'm seeing here.

LIKE I SAID PEOPLE ARE IN DIFFERENT PLACES IN THEIR LIVES.

YOU WANT THIS TO BE A PLACE THAT JUST EXCHANGES INFORMATION IT SOUNDS

LIKE. OR YOU JUST WANT THIS LIST TO BE WHAT YOU WANT. YOU WANT THIS

LIST TO BE WHAT YOU WANT IT TO BE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DON'T CARE

WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WANT, HOW OTHER PEOPLE THINK, OR YOU DON'T CARE

ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE DIFFERENT FROM YOU. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT IT

TO BE EXCLUSIVE SO ONLY THE PEOPLE YOU AGREE WITH OR THE PEOPLE YOU

LIKE OR THE PEOPLE WHO THINK LIKE YOU ARE HERE. SINCE NOT EVERYONE

IS JUST LIKE YOU, THAT EXCLUDES A LOT OF US. SOME OF US LIKE TO BE

SOCIAL AND TALK TO EACH OTHER. SOMETIMES IT'S GOOD TO TAKE SOCIAL

STUFF OFF LINE BUT OTHER TIMES IT'S NOT.

LIKE I SAID, WHY DON'T YOU START YOUR OWN LIST AND MAKE IT WANT YOU

WANT. THEN MAYBE YOU'LL BE HAPPY.

LAURA IN NJ

July 16, 2005

On 7/16/05, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> " 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.

" Did I say something offensive, or are you just holding a grudge?

"

Neither.

July 16, 2005

Just so you know, I agree with a lot of your reasoning and your writing

style doesn't bother me. I have several online friends who write similarly

and receive similar reactions from people who use a less blunt/more chummy

(don't want to put a value judgment on that distinction.) I love discussing

ideas with people who can state their arguments in a clean style.

But so this list contains a lot of what you'd call gibberish. So what? Are

you getting something positive out of being on the list? Are you only

reading what you consider to be gibberish?

If you are embarrassed about this list and are only reading gibberish, why

put yourself through this? It's your choice to be here. If you are only

getting the experience of being annoyed at gibberish and needing to post

things you've been told hurt other people's feelings, what are you going to

do about it? Do you think your response to the list is going to help the

list have less gibberish for you? If not, you can either start enjoying the

responses you are getting or you can change how you are responding.

I don't care if you only post caustic, hurtful comments - not that you have,

I'm just saying I don't care if you do. If I don't like 'em, I'll stop

reading you. (So far, that's not the case. I've liked our discussions.)

And everyone else on this list has the same capability. The list mods get

to decide if the list has the tone they want, the rest of us get to choose

what we read.

YR

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Gene Schwartz

One can have a respect for nature, and be humane with believing the

gibberish that I'm seeing here.

July 16, 2005

" Just so you know, I agree with a lot of your reasoning and your writing

style doesn't bother me. I have several online friends who write similarly

and receive similar reactions from people who use a less blunt/more chummy

(don't want to put a value judgment on that distinction.) I love discussing

ideas with people who can state their arguments in a clean style. "

Thank you.

" But so this list contains a lot of what you'd call gibberish. So what?

Are

you getting something positive out of being on the list? Are you only

reading what you consider to be gibberish? "

Well, if it were all gibberish, I wouldn't be on the list...

" If you are embarrassed about this list and are only reading gibberish, why