mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record straight...) - MODERATORS?

[Guest guest]

On 7/23/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Unfortunately, I think one source of the fundamental divide over diet is

> pretty heavily bound to root right/left religious/secular values, and thus

> may prove depressingly intractable. Many religious people on the right,

> particularly fundamentalists, believe that the Earth and everything on it,

> including animals, were put here for human use and in human

> custody. Therefore they often don't perceive any kind of moral objection

> to eating meat, and those of them who are interested in health are thus

> quite open to WAPF-style ideas. People on the left, however, tend not to

> believe in the divine right of humans to eat animals and do with the world

> what they want. They're more likely to be interested in environmental

> conservation and animal rights, and as such they're more emotionally open

> to vegetarian types of ideas and resistant to the notion that eating

> animals isn't just a potentially healthy option but effectively necessary.

Most libertarians are quite carnivorous and apt to thumb their noses

at vegans/vegetarians. A good chunk of them are atheists/agnostics and

their politics, especially in today's environment, would be considered

way left. Murray Rothbard (atheist/agnostic) once noted that he went

from being an extreme right wing " neanderthal " to an extreme leftist

all in a matter of two decades without ever changing his position,

LOL!

http://snipurl.com/gge7

" Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and

lone " Neanderthal " (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as

one friend pungently put it, that " Senator Taft had sold out to the

socialists. " Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist,

since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U.S.

imperialism, advocate Black Power and have just joined the new Peace

and Freedom Party. And yet my basic political views have not changed

by a single iota in these two decades!

" It is obvious that something is very wrong with the old labels, with

the categories of " left " and " right, " and with the ways in which we

customarily apply these categories to American political life. My

personal odyssey is unimportant; the important point is that if I can

move from " extreme right " to " extreme left " merely by standing in one

place, drastic though unrecognized changes must have taken place

throughout the American political spectrum over the last generation. "

Note that this was written in 1968!

So while I think you hit it in on the head in terms of religious

people who are on the right politically, I don't think it adequately

explains the many religious people who are on the left politically

(and there is are quite a few), who also believe that animals were

given by God for service and food. I have met a few of them over the

years. Nor does it adequately explain the burgeoning libertarian

movement which is full of atheists/agnostics who in valuing their

health choose meat eating and even WAP style eating as the way, not

vegetarianism and certainly not as a matter of divine right.

Anyway, just my musings. It is an interesting subject that you have

raised, especially as it pertains to how we might reach out to people

on any part of the spectrum with this message.

[Guest guest]

>Sorry about post with this subject that just showed up...it took a full 24

>hours for it to show up, and I have stopped posting on this topic.

Not your fault, Gene, so no worries. Sometimes gets the best of us all.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>So while I think you hit it in on the head in terms of religious

>people who are on the right politically, I don't think it adequately

>explains the many religious people who are on the left politically

>(and there is are quite a few), who also believe that animals were

>given by God for service and food.

What you are calling " left " and what I and most other people call " left "

are don't seem to be entirely the same things.

That said, it's true that I didn't make the effort to cover a more

multidimensional and therefore accurate political spectrum. I was just musing.

>Nor does it adequately explain the burgeoning libertarian

>movement which is full of atheists/agnostics who in valuing their

>health choose meat eating and even WAP style eating as the way, not

>vegetarianism and certainly not as a matter of divine right.

In this country, at least, there are two camps of libertarians: what you

might call business libertarians, who are generally on what's traditionally

the right, and social libertarians, who are generally on what's

traditionally called the left. My suspicion is that right-libertarians are

much more consistently pro-meat than left-libertarians like me.

>Anyway, just my musings. It is an interesting subject that you have

>raised, especially as it pertains to how we might reach out to people

>on any part of the spectrum with this message.

Inasmuch as effective outreach is essential, I think it's actually more

than just interesting.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> People on the left, however, tend not to

>believe in the divine right of humans to eat animals and do with the world

>what they want. They're more likely to be interested in environmental

>conservation and animal rights, and as such they're more emotionally open

>to vegetarian types of ideas and resistant to the notion that eating

>animals isn't just a potentially healthy option but effectively necessary.

> How to bridge that gap? I'm not sure. Certainly pointing out that the

> main calorie sources vegetarians rely on, grains and legumes, are harvested

> by giant machines which kill legions of smaller animals, ought to be

> useful, but the simple logical argument that (a) humans need animal foods,

> and not just dairy but actual meat and organs, and ( eating grass-fed

> ruminants is actually much more humane than eating wheat and corn and soy,

> because only a relatively few animals are killed instead of hordes of

> smaller ones, isn't likely to be adequate for most people.

>

> I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to successfully evangelize to the

> left. <g>

,

Blindness of both the left and right is all I've got. Why are both the

left and right h***bent to apply agriculture to the majority of land

that " is " created specifically for animals to graze? It's just as

against life and nature for the left to plant the Great Plains as it

is for the right to plant it. It's grazing land. What of the purpose

of the creator of the land ? Wheather it believed to be natural

processes or a being creator, neither proponent bothers to work with

the law in the land that's made for eveything to live but not for all

to live the same.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

>Why are both the

>left and right h***bent to apply agriculture to the majority of land

>that " is " created specifically for animals to graze?

Large campaign contributions (and less savory forms of influence) from

agribusiness.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> >Why are both the

> >left and right h***bent to apply agriculture to the majority of land

> >that " is " created specifically for animals to graze?

>

> Large campaign contributions (and less savory forms of influence) from

> agribusiness.

Wasn't clear there. Left didn't mean political left. Was thinking more

the not in politics, environmental, vegetarian left that would plant

the Great Plains too, a la Diet for a Small Planet style.

Good for feeding the overpopulating wildlife. That Home on the Range

songwriter " Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam " wasn't thinking

of growing wheat or corn. I know, corny!

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Oh shoot. I don't want to be a poopy pants but that part of the WAP

philosophy doesn't yet make sense to me; Maybe I need more education. The

whole angle of Diet For a Small Planet was that you could produce more food

energy (calories) on, say, an acre of planted crops than you could by

growing grass, grazing it and eating the livestock.

I've never had a problem with vegetarians (unless they deprive me of my

meat.) The diet seems to work for a lot of people (and I think they all live

out here in Northern California as a matter of fact.) I would have no

friends if I couldn't get along with vegetarians and raw foodists (the

vegans are pretty weird though...) I just always assumed that they must have

a body type that is wired differently than mine and, well, lucky them I say.

I mean, if they had the celiac gene like I have, they'd all be dead by now

with all the grains and dairy they have to supplement with.

I suppose there are figures that show raising livestock gets more

nutrition/calories from the land than agriculture? I always thought that the

Diet for a Small Planet angle was probably accurate but I justified my diet

by believing that people should have fewer kids. (I have none so I guess I

can claim some meager high ground in this one teeny respect.. :-) But heck,

if it turns out that by eating so much meat I'm also helping the planet,

well fill me in!

~Robin

> Wasn't clear there. Left didn't mean political left. Was thinking more the

> not in politics, environmental, vegetarian left that would plant the Great

> Plains too, a la Diet for a Small Planet style. Wanita

>

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

>Wasn't clear there. Left didn't mean political left. Was thinking more

>the not in politics, environmental, vegetarian left that would plant

>the Great Plains too, a la Diet for a Small Planet style.

Ah, gotcha. That's a harder nut to crack, but unfortunately, I think their

nature draws them to those ideas.

-