Here I Come...I Guess
Lori Lancaster | February 26, 2005
[hidden by request]
John E Gunter | February 26, 2005
Please tell me you don't hate baked beans!
By the way, who are you? ;-)
I'll say the same thing as Lori, click my pict, but since we're in the same gaming group, you already are getting to know me. :-D
Plus, you're not the only anime person Lori, but I think you're into it more than me. :-D
John
Anna Gregoline | February 26, 2005
Welcome.. I've been thinking about your statements all morning, and I don't quite understand - do you think that a carrot, for example, suffers for us picking it and eating it in the same way an animal does?
Aaron Shurtleff | February 26, 2005
See? I never would have known about the picture clicking thing! I'm getting smarter by the second...i guess. I guess I have to make me up one of those things for my picture. Right now it just says gender:male, which is true, but too minimal.
As for carrots, I don't know. Some plants are capable of rudimentary tactile response, for example, those plants that fold up their leaves if you touch them. Do I know that carrots are INcapable of pain? Many many plants can change their physiology and chemistry in response to insects feeding on them. That indicates to me that they know they are being eaten, but do they feel "pain" as we might understand it? I guess the safest answer if that they probably don't suffer in the same way, but they might suffer in a different way, one that science hasn't even thought about. I'm not advocating random killing of all life! That would be pointless. I'm just saying that I feel that all life should be respected, and I don't make an arbitrary line where it changes. I know a girl who won't eat "anything with a face". I find that comment absurd! Does it make any sense to say, "You have a face! I shall spare you! Come to my domicile and I will pluck the sexual organs of this plant, and give them to you for nourishment!"??
As I've said, it's one of my quirks, but I like it just the same. It makes me who I am.
Scott Hardie | February 27, 2005
Welcome, Aaron. John beat me to the "who are you" joke. :)
I hadn't really thought your point before, but I like it. (The all-life-being-equal thing, not the hating-Boston thing.)
On the "Account Options" page of your control panel (link) you can edit the personal info.
Denise Sawicki | February 28, 2005
I agree on the all-life-being-equal point as well. I have thought about it before and it just doesn't make sense to me that being a vegetarian would be morally superior. Are dogs and other animals that are primarily carnivorous inherently immoral animals? I guess by asking that question I could be opening up a whole other discussion on the duties of humans to transcend their animal roots or something. I think humans do plenty of things that are "immoral" but I don't think eating meat is one of them.
Denise Sawicki | February 28, 2005
I heard an argument one time that to be a vegetarian is less moral... A vegetarian typically ends more lives than a carnivore because, for instance, it takes an awful lot of carrots to equal the calorie content of one cow. I think that's a pretty goofy argument though, I don't think either way is immoral.
The immoral thing that humans do with regard to food is to assume that all the food in the world belongs to us or our livestock or pets. Here I am taking ideas from Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Aaron, you might like that book, as your ideas sound like they might be in line with those of the author. (Is anyone tired yet of me mentioning that book at every opportunity?)
Amy Austin | February 28, 2005
Right up front, let me just say that I am an omnivorous, meat-eating hypocrite.
That said, the moral argument against eating meat -- at least among the (vegan) people that *I* know -- is not strictly about universal equality among lifeforms or eating things "with faces" (an argument that most meat-eaters would find absurd, of course), but it does have to do with a code of ethics and universal respect for all lifeforms. That is to say that it isn't necessarily the concept of eating other animals in and of itself that offends a lot of vegetarian/vegan types -- it's the mass assembly-line practices and treatment of modern farm animals that has them bothered... and rightly so, in my opinion. The things that agriculture has done in order to maximize dairy and meat production -- in an effort to keep up with an ever-expanding population of fat and lazy fast-food-eating consumers, most of whom have never known what it means to grow and slaughter your own food -- is pretty sick and sad.
I think most people are aware of the cruel practices involved with providing veal to the meat-eating market, and I'd like to think that most diners would shun it for just that reason, but this is merely the tip of the proverbial iceburg when it comes to chickens and cows. From the administration of rBGH and antibiotics to dairy and meat cows to chickens with no room to do anything but grow enmeshed in their coops and who have their beaks cauterized in order to prevent them from pecking each other to death, it truly is sickening just what lengths we "humans" will go to for the maximum short-term yield of any crop or profit!
I won't digress any further into a lengthy and morbid diatribe here about such things, as anyone who is truly interested and/or cares enough can look into this further for themselves. However, I *will* adamantly defend the integrity and honor of *anybody* with the courage and moral fortitude to choose a meat/animal-free lifestyle in the face of a very callous, cynical, and self-serving culture that cares nothing about any transgressions to which a blind eye is so easily turned, i.e., the "NIMBY" Syndrome... it's fine, as long as it isn't bothering *me*!
My own feeling about people who voice such contempt for the "namby-pamby" vegetarian/PETA/animal-loving crowd is that they are secretly ashamed that they lack the will to live by convictions that would deny them the hedonistic pleasure of being fully glutted on a gorgeous steak (and lobster!) dinner or their daily dose of Mickey D's (see Morgan Spurlock's docu-film -- I don't give a damn what the Academy thinks!), and so they have to loudly proclaim their pride in being at the top of the food chain. I quietly read the PETA discussion and avoided contributing for just that reason. And since I already stated at the very beginning of this that I eat meat and that I'm a hypocrite, I have no problem at all telling you that I am one of those who simply cannot give up the cow-gnashing habit altogether... but I am *not* proud. And I will wholeheartedly concur that the choice to abstain from eating animals based on this standpoint is, indeed, a morally superior one. But who ever said that a single choice confers moral superiority upon any one individual... after all, how morally superior would Ted Bundy have been had he been a vegan???
Scott Hardie | February 28, 2005
Denise, I agree, it's goofy to argue that vegetarians are "morally inferior" because they kill more individual plants than the number of individual animals killed by meat-eaters. After all, how many plants must a cow eat in order to grow to full size? A lot of animals are fed the chopped, processed remains of other animals. When you multiply like that, think about how many, many plants went into the making of just one side of beef. (Not that it stops me personally... I had eggs for breakfast, beef and fish for lunch, and chicken for dinner.)
This looks to be a good discussion to test whether we can keep the peace after that meltdown a few weeks back. Please don't make me come home from work tonight to emails warning me that TC is getting out of hand again. (It's not the emails I mind all that much; it's the getting out of hand.)
Aaron Shurtleff | February 28, 2005
Just to clarify my point (I'm not causin' trouble, Scott!), I don't feel contempt for vegans, vegetarians and the like (unless they happen to be from or in Boston, and that's a separate issue). And, just in case the point was overlooked, I'm not going to be made to feel morally inferior for being omnivorous. I understand what Amy is saying, but I don't think that I feel pride or shame in my choices. I know a few vegetarians (and one vegan), and we get along fine (except when the vegan, who claims to have been a meat eater as a child, now tells me that the smell of cooking meat makes him sick. Whatever!). But, I let them know that we need to have mutual respect for one another. We're all equal.
And I am by no means proud of the things that people do to other life forms for the convenience of the human race. I am in full agreement on that.
I'm surprised to have heard from so many people! This is great! Of course, I hope I don't end up starting the discussion that kills everything. I was trying to avoid this topic!
Yes, John, I hate Boston baked beans, but not all baked beans are done in the Boston style. One has to draw a distinction. :)
Aaron Shurtleff | February 28, 2005
Denise, if I read correctly, didn't you just get married this weekend? Go spend time as a newlywed and enjoy yourself! :) Posting around here so soon! What are ya thinkin'?
Congrats!
Of course, if I misinterpreted something, I'm gonna look pretty dumb in a little bit...
Denise Sawicki | February 28, 2005
Yes I just got married (and have not changed my name, so it will stay the same on the site). It wasn't a big ceremony or anything and we've kinda kept doing normal stuff before and after.. We're just weird that way. Darrell's family doesn't know about it yet (a lot of them don't get along him that well so he figured he would keep it secret from everyone but his twin brother.) A female friend of Darrell's text messaged him yesterday (actually she was trying to get me and got him). She didn't know about it and he didn't know how to tell her so he was talking to her for a while, and as a joke I kept trying to take the keyboard away from him and type in "We just got married yesterday so we are busy having sex! Gotta go!" Well I finally got him to send a more toned down message of the same general nature... heh...
Amy, actually I agree with you that the meat you get in the store is probably produced unethically and with little regard to the quality of life of the animals. I just don't think it's inherently unethical if you're, say, living in an igloo in Alaska and you kill a caribou so you can survive the winter. Nobody's probably said anything to disagree with me on that point, so I am just talking for no reason as usual. Also, I'm a hypocrite who does eat meat from the grocery store...
If we were all vegetarians perhaps we could produce enough food to feed even more people because no food would be going to feed our livestock but honestly I don't think that's a good reason to convert everyone to vegetarianism. Take that kind of viewpoint to extremes and you are saying it is OK to make every other animal extinct so that more humans can survive. A lot of people may in fact agree with that view but I don't...
John E Gunter | February 28, 2005
Congrats Denise. Hope you and your new hubby are happy with your marriage. Hope everything went well without to many problems.
As far as the eating meat, yes I eat meat. I eat store bought meat and have actually been there to watch my in-laws kill and slaughter a pig. Interesting experience, but the really nasty part is watching the other pigs go wild because some of the blood from the one they shot splashed back into the pen.
For all the bad stuff we do, people are a lot nicer than the animal kingdom. We take great pains to make sure people live that would normally die, which I'm not saying is bad, but we go against survival of the fittest all the time. Something that nature never does!
So yes, I’m a meat eater. No, I’ll never go vegetarian, voluntarily. No, I have no problem with people living how they want to live, that is, as long as they don’t start trying to tell me how I want to live. As long as we are not doing things that are considered reprehensible by society, there is nothing wrong with what we are doing.
John
Anna Gregoline | February 28, 2005
I'd like to offer forth that survival of the fittest isn't nice or good or bad or evil or anything like that - nature simply IS, and ascribing human values to it doesn't really work for me.
(We also take pains as a society to kill who would normally live, in examples like the death sentence.)
I agree that while no one likes anyone who claims to be morally superior, from a lot of vegetarian and vegan standpoints, they have to be, because eating plants does not support an industry that causes untold suffering of animals. Most of the vegans and vegetarians I know either don't eat animals because they feel animals are too intelligent/feeling to eat or that they don't want to support cruel industry practices of killing and preparing meat - or a combination of the two. I think those two viewpoints are extremely valid. Of course it depends on what your moral compass is.
I eat meat. I like it way too much and I will never stop eating meat unless I need to for health reasons. For now, I am unable to afford to eat free-range chicken and grass-fed beef, but as soon as I can, I will. I do not like supporting an evil industry. Sometimes I have problems when I think hard about consuming animals, because I love animals and I do feel it is unfair to eat them sometimes. But I don't think I can give it up. Which means, to me, that I must do my best to eat responsibily and make sure the animals suffered the least amount of pain possible from the field to my plate.
Amy Austin | February 28, 2005
Thanks for the agreement, Denise... and "congratulations" once again -- good thing you guys don't live in an igloo, huh? ;DDD
I just don't think it's inherently unethical if you're, say, living in an igloo in Alaska and you kill a caribou so you can survive the winter.
I didn't mean to indicate that I thought it morally wrong to kill animals for survival -- that is what almost all life was designed to do, to feed on other life. Slaughtering your own meat does not offend me at all, and neither does hunting, as long as the animal is consumed by the hunter or donated to someone who will. Pure sport and hanging heads on walls while the animal rots away somewhere are just plain wrong.
I also didn't mean to imply that all humans should become vegetarian, and I do think it rather bizarre that people will literally starve to death in India while the sacred cows/bulls run the streets there... weird! In fact, I feel that most of our problems seem to universally stem from heavy overpopulation, which is why I have serious issues with fertility treatments -- but that was another conversation! The "taking of great pains" so that those of us who are ordinarily weak links sort of fits in here, too. I don't think that this makes us special by comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom, either... if other animals had the means to save all of their kin, they surely would -- it's simply called survival instinct, and it's just that it's very modern and capable in humans. I can offer a story that my family calls the "cat massacre" to exemplify this.
I think Anna summed it up best for what I was trying to say -- I am in complete agreement with her here. And John, to me, this is the problem that I/we (Anna?)/vegans/vegetarians are having... society *doesn't* seem to be labelling something as "reprehensible" that perhaps they should! And I'm not talking about your in-laws slaughtering pigs here -- that's cool (although gross, as you said)... I'm talking about large-scale suffering and abuse of mass-produced livestock. It's not "natural" for chickens to be kept en masse in wire boxes and to have their beaks sawed off so that there can be more of them for the pickin's -- that's not what the coyotes and foxes do! I don't have a problem with eating me some fried chicken, but if I went to KFC all the time, I'd sure have one hell of a guilt complex! I can even visually see a difference between the eggs I buy from the store and the ones that come from my family's chickens.
Just as Anna was saying, it's about making responsible eating choices -- like not going to the major chains *all the freakin' time*!!! -- and reducing the impact that our gluttony has on the livestock industry! This is the sort of message that people like Morgan Spurlock and Eric Schlosser (both meat-eaters, BTW) are trying to put across to America. What we are doing *is* reprehensible by a lot of folks' standards, if not "society's".
Anna Gregoline | February 28, 2005
"I also didn't mean to imply that all humans should become vegetarian, and I do think it rather bizarre that people will literally starve to death in India while the sacred cows/bulls run the streets there... weird!"
It's really not that weird when you know about the belief system of Hindus. It's not really worship of cows, but that it's taboo to eat them. They are a symbol of the sacredness of all life and therefore are allowed respect. The cow will also bear male young that can pull plows to help the family grow food - the giver of life, in a way. There are more scriptual reasons that are fading in my memory from religion class, but that's what I know (I hope I got it right, Kris, with his unending knowledge might be able to correct me or extrapolate).
I don't think that's any more weird than Catholics believing that a cracker becomes the physical body of their saviour - and then eating it!
(I'm not knocking Catholics, by the way, as that would be mocking some of my own family. I'm just pointing out that ALL religion is "weird" if you're objective about it.)
Amy Austin | March 1, 2005
I am very aware of the Hindu belief system, Anna, and I do also think that holy communion is "rather bizarre", too. I'm just always surprised when people can adhere to tenets like this in the face of their own possible demise... it actually merits quite a bit of respect along the same lines that we are speaking of with regards to the choice to be meat-free, but it doesn't mean that I find it any less weird. Besides, the comment was meant to be taken rather light-heartedly, not categorically dismissive.
Amy Austin | March 1, 2005
Hey, Aaron...
Somehow, I missed your 08:47 comment until just now, and I just wanted to say a couple of things. First, I'm glad that you got what I was saying without being offended -- sometimes (as Scott pointed out) that isn't always accomplished with the greatest of ease -- good job! (I hope that doesn't sound condescending, either... I don't mean to.)
The other thing was about vegans and the smell of cooking meat. One of my very closest and dearest friends is vegan, and she grew up eating meat, too. She adopted the "vegetarian" lifestyle at 17 and took it a step further, becoming "vegan" about a decade later, I think. Two decades of not eating meat later, and she has been married (twice, both meat-eaters) to an enthusiastic, but understanding, carnivore for a little over a year now -- hard to believe! She also strongly dislikes the smell of cooking meat, and I don't think that Jim cooks it in the house... there's always the BBQ and restaurants, after all. But they are committed to proving that these choices can co-exist, and he has a website that is devoted to helping other such friends/couples find ways of dining together in peace: (link)
I offer to you an analogy that might make it easier to swallow what your vegan friend is saying. If you smoke or have ever been a smoker, then perhaps it will be all the more effective? Anyhow, I have known many an ex-smoker who for years inhaled cancer sticks with unabated voracity, but once deciding to quit suddenly found him/herself *hating* the smell of cigarettes... yes, to the point of nausea. It's not all that uncommon a reaction to any cessation, really, and is probably more of a mental association than anything else -- kind of like having a bad case of food poisoning with a certain meal (or even just overstuffing yourself with it) and then not wanting it again... ever or for a really long time thereafter, you know? And many ex-smokers don't want to be around the smell, if not because of sickened reactions, then only because of not wanting to be reminded of the habit that they quit.
BTW, my grandmother is one woman to whom my analogy *definitely* does not apply! She is 81, with emphysema that forced her to quit about 12? years ago now. The irony of this is that my family farms tobacco, and they all live in neighboring houses on the edge of the farmland. For the first couple of years, she continued to find ways of sneaking her smokes, and was repeatedly "busted" by my grandfather and father. As she weaned herself of her sneaky ways, she would stand out on the deck during harvest season and inhale deeply the smell of curing tobacco leaves (understandable, since this is a much more pleasant aroma than the burning cigarette, to my mind and that of most non-smokers!), longing for her old habit. The love of a lit cigarette has never really left her, even though being near one now would probably be enough to force her to wear the oxygen mask for a spell... and she continues to wax nostalgic about her smoking days like each cigarette was a little bit of heaven -- it's amazing! I've never known anyone with such fondness for something so bad for you. I've even asked her if she had it to do over again, knowing the price she'd pay and the troubles she has now with her emphysema, would she? And she would. She's appalled by the people who sue tobacco companies, when they've been telling you for years (all of *my* life!) that they're no good for you, and I'm glad that she has all her happy cigarette memories and no regrets.
So obviously, Aaron, not all quitters (of meat or cigarettes) experience the distaste in the opposite extreme that your friend does, but I submit to you that it is quite a legitimate complaint.
Anna Gregoline | March 1, 2005
I understand that, Amy. I just wouldn't have liked hearing my religion was weird if I was a Hindu! I find the Hindu religion fascinating, and I've always meant to study it further on my own (outside of a class). It seems like Eastern religions have such a sacred respect for the chain of life that isn't as prevelant in Western societies. Personally I ascribe to a Pagan belief system, and I wouldn't appreciate it if someone told me it was weird. I think religion is such a touchy and personal thing that I'm generally careful in discussing it in ways that could be taken dismissively. But that's just my own deal. I know you didn't mean any disrespect to any Hindu readers!
Kris Weberg | March 1, 2005
Pretty much everyone has some tenets they'll die for, of course -- a mother would die for her child in many cases, to use the cliched example. It's all in where you draw the line.
Denise Sawicki | March 1, 2005
as usual i wasn't really debating points set forth by anyone here, i was just debating imaginary points, which is entirely pointless. I know Amy did not say that everyone should become vegetarians, for instance. i'll probably retire to my non-talkative state soon.
Anna Gregoline | March 1, 2005
Please don't, Denise, I love it when you're in on discussions.
Aaron Shurtleff | March 1, 2005
Again, plants don't "naturally" get grown together in large groups with orderly rows, nor do their natural predators usually rip off the male reproductive organs to prevent fertilization (which in some plants results in tastier produce). You're still drawing an arbitrary line between plants and animals. For every animal example, I can raise a plant example. We do NOTHING to animals that we don't routinely do to plants! And no one raises a frickin' stink about that! IT'S ALL LIFE!!!!
I think I made a mistake by mentioning that this topic makes me crazy! ;D
However, the point about the smell of cooking meat is a valid one, and one that I had not thought about in that manner. I am an ex-smoker actually, although I fall more on your grandmother's side (I love to go to bars where smoking is still allowed, just for the "ambiance"). But I do know ex-smokers who are now violently anti-smoke, so I can see that point of view better. Well, not violently...vehemently, I guess.
Anna Gregoline | March 1, 2005
I still don't understand why it's arbitrary when most people believe that animals hurt when you rip a leg off, for example, whereas a plant doesn't "suffer" in the same way? It's all life, but it's not all equal suffering. That's why most people who use those reasons feel justified, and I don't think that's arbitrary at all.
Sorry to drive you crazy...
Aaron Shurtleff | March 1, 2005
So, if a plant could scream, you'd believe it suffered? Does it need to cry? Bleed? What is it exactly that a plant has to do for the world to consider it suffering? It has to have a brain to feel pain? So, when an insect starts feeding on a tree, and it starts producing lots of sap to discourage the insect, what is it responding to? When a herbaceous plant hardens up, or starts producing toxins and shuttling them off to the spot where insects feed, why is it so hard to believe that the plant is responding to the feeling of having an insect start eating it? These all happen in the real world, you know, so they are valid questions. I think that people don't WANT to think that plants can feel pain, because that would upset their rosy world view.
Wasn't it Jack Handey (Of Deep Thoughts on SNL) who said, "If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? Maybe. If they screamed all the time."?
I think it's sympathy. A person can imagine having needles stuck in their eye, or their legs chopped off. We have those parts, and even if we haven't experienced the pain, we can imagine and have sympathy. We cut the top off a tree so it doesn't grow as tall...eh, it's just a tree. A man in a movie gets hit in the groin with a football, men reflexively cross their legs (you know you do!). Male flowers are excised to prevent self-pollenation...eh, it's just a plant.
The funny thing is (and not ha-ha funny) that I'm certain some of you are thinking that I'm trolling right now, or just being a pain-in-the-ass. No one can actually feel this strongly about plants, you think. Aaron's one of those people. Trying to provoke a reaction. Honestly, no. I really do feel that strongly about people who try to make a distinction between life with a cell wall and chloroplasts and life without a cell wall and chloroplasts.
Amy Austin | March 1, 2005
I guess we shouldn't even ask whether you're pro-life or pro-choice then? ;DDD
Anna Gregoline | March 1, 2005
Ok, that's your belief system, and I respect that. I'm not disrespecting, just trying to understand. I'm having trouble with it, obviously.
It doesn't upset my "rosy" world view to think that plants feel pain - in fact, with my pagan belief system, I'm more inclined to think that all life DOES have a cosmic stake in the world and that stopping life on any level does do damage to that balance. But I'm afraid I still place higher value on animals than I do on plants. I cannot see killing a cow and killing a tree as being exactly on the same level - maybe in a cosmic way, or in an intrinsic value way, but not in an earthly suffering way. I still feel worse for the cow. I cannot look at someone uprooting a plant and throwing it in the trash the same as I do someone rending the limbs from a cat and throwing it in the trash. Maybe it is sympathy for higher life forms, I don't know. I just can't get my mind away from the amount of suffering I perceive and know to be true and I guess that's where we just disagree.
This view is interesting but it must be hard for you - I imagine that you don't meet many people who agree - are you angry with all of them? I'm not trying to make you change your mind or anything, I'm just impressed, I guess, since I would posit that 99% of the Western world probably DOES make this distinction.
How do you eat anything? Do you feel guilty all the time? Honestly, I'm not trolling either.
Anna Gregoline | March 1, 2005
So...I guess I agree that a plant suffers. But not enough for me to put it on the same plane as an animal.
Thanks for answering all my questions, by the way. I hope I'm not being rude. I am genuinely curious when I discover a previously undiscovered belief system.
Aaron Shurtleff | March 1, 2005
Now, Amy, I'm pretty sure I mentioned the whole being raised Catholic thing! :) Life starts at "Hey, baby, what's your sign?" (Yeah, I'm that old.)
And, Anna, I'm not really angry at all the "other people", per se. It's just that the whole argument rapidly turns ugly quickly, and I get a bit...frustrated. I'm no angel, you see. I have sort of a temper. That's why I try to avoid the issue if I can. :)
And I do have a healthy dose of Catholic guilt. It's the kind of thing you can't shake easily...(and this from a guy who quit smoking!) But, you can't not eat...unless you're Terri Schiavo (if you don't know, you probably don't want to). I just don't feel degrees of badness based on my food choices. Well, OK, I do get that slightly ill feeling after a Big Mac, but it's not the same! :) In some ways, it's my Tragic Weakness (tm): I'm easily guilted. That's why Superhero can never be my career choice. *sob* That and the lack of a superpower.
Kris Weberg | March 1, 2005
Bloody awful double post.
Kris Weberg | March 1, 2005
Well, at least part of the distinction is that we can conceive (if sometimes in a faulty way) how an animal suffers pain. Animals generally resemble us -- some more than others, but bear with me here -- and more than that, they react to pain in ways that are thoroughly analogous to the way humans, especially children, react to pain. Animals withdraw, they display behavioral aftereffects due to extreme trauma, some of them can cry or otherwise express pain. The leap to "they suffer like us!" is easy.
Plants? Well, sure, the analogy can be made, but it's much more of a stretch. It's a much, much harder argument to make and it requires a greater intuitive leap. And intuition is the game here as much as reason, perhaps more so. It's not merely that plants lack "faces," or are incapable of movement -- it is, indeed, that they lack anything resembling a centralized nervous system, any nerves that resemble the nerves that allow the bulk of animals to feel pain, and so on. It's not just counterintuitive, it's an analogy that breaks down unless we widen the definition of pain far enough that it ceases to function for everyday life.
There's also the salient point that we don 't always have to kill a plant to eat from it. Carrots, potatoes, and so on, sure -- but many plants survive and regenerate after picking, and in the case of fruit, well, the plant often relies on the fruit being eaten by, say, a bird, to spread the seeds. Maple trees can live through being tapped. Outside of eggs and dairy products, animal foods require not just damage but flat-out death.
I'm not a vegetarian, but I can see why eating animals can be successfully distinguished from eating plants. And I can see, albeit to a lesser extent, the distinction between exploiting or harming animals and exploiting and harming plants -- for whom harm in any anthropocentric sense is epistemologically quite difficult -- that vegans make.
Kris Weberg | March 1, 2005
Well, at least part of the distinction is that we can conceive (if sometimes in a faulty way) how an animal suffers pain. Animals generally resemble us -- some more than others, but bear with me here -- and more than that, they react to pain in ways that are thoroughly analogous to the way humans, especially children, react to pain. Animals withdraw, they display behavioral aftereffects due to extreme trauma, some of them can cry or otherwise express pain. The leap to "they suffer like us!" is easy.
Plants? Well, sure, the analogy can be made, but it's much more of a stretch. It's a much, much harder argument to make and it requires a greater intuitive leap. And intuition is the game here as much as reason, perhaps more so. It's not merely that plants lack "faces," or are incapable of movement -- it is, indeed, that they lack anything resembling a centralized nervous system, any nerves that resemble the nerves that allow the bulk of animals to feel pain, and so on. It's not just counterintuitive, it's an analogy that breaks down unless we widen the definition of pain far enough that it ceases to function for everyday life.
There's also the salient point that we don 't always have to kill a plant to eat from it. Carrots, potatoes, and so on, sure -- but many plants survive and regenerate after picking, and in the case of fruit, well, the plant often relies on the fruit being eaten by, say, a bird, to spread the seeds. Maple trees can live through being tapped. Outside of eggs and dairy products, animal foods require not just damage but flat-out death.
I'm not a vegetarian, but I can see why eating animals can be successfully distinguished from eating plants. And I can see, albeit to a lesser extent, the distinction between exploiting or harming animals and exploiting and harming plants -- for whom harm in any anthropocentric sense is epistemologically quite difficult -- that vegans make.
Jackie Mason | March 2, 2005
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | March 2, 2005
Oh, most definitely - complex proteins and all that.
Kris Weberg | March 2, 2005
"If it casts a shadow, it's alive and we shouldn't eat it."
Thereby prompting the creation of the invisible chicken in 2043 by dedicated vegan scientists.
John E Gunter | March 2, 2005
I always try to do the minimum necessary for me to continue existance and don't usually feel guilty about it. Do everything in moderation is my code and has been for quite some time. Everything has a place and everything has a purpose.
Not wanting to get into a who decides discussion, but when I go out to eat, I try not to waste food. If I have extra left on my plate and can't finish it, I usually take it home.
Yes Americans have a nasty method for getting out food. The processes used for us to consume what we want is terrible. By using we, I mean the general public, not pointing fingers at anyone. But until it becomes less cost effective to do it the way it is being done, the companies who do it will continue.
This is the same things that man has been doing with resource gathering for years, and I don't think anyone should feel guilty for being part of the human condition, unless you aren't doing something to try and make that condition better.
If you are a waster of anything, food, water, gas, etc, then yes you are a part of the problem, not the solution. But if you make an effort to use only what you need and use all of it, then you are part of the solution. Again, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, we all have our vices, but if you make an effort to improve yourself, then you are doing good, in my opinion.
John
Aaron Shurtleff | March 2, 2005
Hey, now! Invisible chickens! That's the ticket!!
John, where's the picture you took of me in the Bee Power shirt? That might be the best picture for me to get up here. That way you all will be able to recognize me on the far-off chance you meet me on the streets. Ha!
And shame on you all for hijacking my hello everyone thread and making it all meaty/veggie/lacto-ovo funky!
Anyhow, hello to everyone!
Oh, and Denise, since I have no clue, and your comments seem to indicate you like talking about the book, what is this book Ishmael all about? I assume not the Moby Dick character?
Hey! Just 2700 more responses and I'll be at the top of the list! Now I have a goal!
John E Gunter | March 2, 2005
I haven't finished that roll of film yet. You know, making sure I use everything that I take kind of thing and not being wasteful. Anyway, there is a building I want to take some pictures of and that inexpensive little piece of throw away technology I have will take good enough pictures of the building.
That should use up the last of that roll of film. I really need to get a digital camera, but still don't want to just buy one and not be happy with it. So, I'll be waiting a little longer till I can afford one I'll be happy with.
Anyway, I'll try and get the film developed this weekend and should have pictures by Wednesday of next week.
John
Aaron Shurtleff | March 3, 2005
Oh. I assumed it was a digital camera. My bad! I thought I was the last man on earth without a digital camera. Good to know there are other Luddites out there! :)
I am one more step closer to my goal of TC domination!!!
I wish you all would comment less so I can catch up! ;)
Amy Austin | March 3, 2005
That would be "Ahab" you're thinking of, Aaron... completely different. We love to hijack around here -- get used to it. ;-P (Shouldn't make a point of mentioning your weaknesses to virtual strangers, now should you!) ;DDDDD
I know just what you mean, too, John -- in my heart, I am truly desirous of a DSLR... like the ridiculously expensive, but oh-so-cool, D-2! (with the most salivating shutter/write speeds I've ever seen on a digital camera!) However, in my wallet, I finally decided on the once-popular, and now passe (= "cheap"...-er), Nikon Coolpix 4500, whose capabilities include 4.0mp/4x zoom, and the coolest thing that the line has to offer (but don't go for the "top-of-the-line" 5400 -- it doesn't have it)... a 270-degree free-swiveling lens that can come in quite handy for those odd-angle needs (and making goofy self-portraits less haphazard, too). It's a pretty basic and handy model and can be fitted with micro and tele lens attachments, and even though the specs say that memory storage capacity is 128MB (the highest in compact flash at that time, I believe), I'm pretty sure that it can take the highest that compact flash has to offer (512MB?). (I say "pretty sure" because the max I currently have and use is 256MB.) Still has a bit slow of a write speed, but overall, a *very* decent "pocket" digi for under $4-500 -- I recommend it highly, as do many other users... read up on it, if you're interested! I don't think you'd be disappointed in it, John. ;-)
P.S. -- The 990 and the 995 share a lot of the same features as the 4500 (and cost even less), but I don't think storage capacity is one of them (I may be wrong here)... I *do* know, however, that you will want to stay away from the 995, though -- most specifically, because there are some inferior changes made to its construction after the 990 (like a plastic, not metal, lens ring that is easily broken). These choices were remedied in the 4500.
Finally, as I told Dave when he was shopping for his digi-cam, I really *don't* recommend anything Olympus, either! I've seen more broken Olympus models than anything else. Canon makes some really great and terrific stuff, too (but if you can't tell, I am most partial to Nikon!). Hope this helps you in your shopping!
Amy Austin | March 3, 2005
Hahahahaha... don't count on it, Aaron -- you will *never* catch up to Scott and ANNA!!! NEVER! ;DDDDD
Amy Austin | March 3, 2005
Oh, yeah, Ishmael did narrate, didn't he? Forgot that... not even sure that I read that one, but I don't think so -- read something else by Melville before 1990...
"Billy Budd", maybe??? (Didn't know that was posthumous, either!)
Denise Sawicki | March 3, 2005
The book Ishmael that I am referring to has nothing to do with Herman Melville. To put it simplistically it is about a gorilla teaching people how they are ruining the Earth. (link) for tons of info on the author and his books.
Anna Gregoline | March 3, 2005
For some reason, that is the best book description I have ever heard.
Kris Weberg | March 3, 2005
Daniel Quinn, my old nemesis.
Denise Sawicki | March 3, 2005
I know the books aren't as intellectual or groundbreaking as they pretend to be but I still like them a lot, I guess...
Kris Weberg | March 4, 2005
The books are fine. I just had too many stoners try to tell me that they were practically Gospel truth.
Aaron Shurtleff | March 4, 2005
Oh! Well, if the books appeal to stoners, how can I go wrong?!? Ha!
But seriously, I might have to check that out. Put something other than fantasy/sci-fi and insects in my reading agenda...for once. :)
Aaron Shurtleff | March 4, 2005
Oh, and I'll catch up...some day! Wait and see!!!!
Anna Gregoline | March 4, 2005
Anything that features a gorilla can't be all bad.
Aaron Shurtleff | March 4, 2005
I don't know...Son of King Kong wasn't all that good. :D
And don't comment so much! I need to catch up! Ha! :)
Anna Gregoline | March 4, 2005
Some people would probably like that....
There's a son of king kong?
Denise Sawicki | March 4, 2005
Hey Aaron, do you work with insects? Do you strive to save your beloved plants from predatory insects? My mom used to study boll weevils, prompting me to do a presentation on them in grade school. I still remember wearing out a couple of brown markers drawing a giant two foot high poster of a bug.
Gorillas are awesome, despite my tale of woe of once having to spend an entire Christmas break preparing a high school research paper about them.
Amy Austin | March 5, 2005
Hahaha... that's funny, because I remember doing a 5th grade project on the flea! We had housepets, and so we also had fleas from time to time. I remember not only making a detailed sketch of the very-ugly-and-disgusting-up-close flea, but also catching a "live specimen" in a drop of glue on an index card... ;D (gross!) I guess everybody's mom has put them up to some sick shit at some time or another!!! (Not to imply that your mom studying boll weevils and consequently prompting you to do your presentation was sick, Denise... just saying -- I think the flea thing *was* rather sick in retrospect, though... ;D)
Aaron Shurtleff | March 7, 2005
Yes, I do work with insects! I work on pests of tomatoes and peppers, mainly. Which is kind of funny, because it's not even what I started out working with! My background is chiefly in wetland aquatic insect ecology, working on food webs and the like. I love working on wetland insects, but no one gives a hoot about them, so it's not very lucrative to be in that particular field (and I sort of shot myself in the foot by not having enough experience with any of the "good" wetland work, like delineation). That's OK though...agriculture is fun, too! :)
Beloved plants! Ha!
So, Denise, your mom used to study boll weevils? Is she now retired, or has she moved on to other studies? (...I'm going to feel really bad if your response is, "Oh, no, she passed recently"...)
Fleas, I have not so much experience with, unfortunately. Fleas are very fascinating, and show great adaptation to their habitat. Of course, I'm a bug geek, so I would say that! Not that a flea is a bug, which it isn't, and I know that very well, but it's an expression! :)
Jackie Mason | March 7, 2005
[hidden by request]
Denise Sawicki | March 7, 2005
The boll weevil study ended and she went to work with humans as a medical techinician.
I always thought the word "bug" was kind of generic and could refer to non-insects...
Aaron Shurtleff | March 8, 2005
Jackie: Thanks! I really enjoy it, too! :)
Denise: Most people use the terms bug and insect interchangeably, but "true bugs" is actually just one order (Heteroptera) within the class Insecta. It doesn't really bug me (pun intended), but some of the folks I went to grad school with get perturbed easily.
Aaron Shurtleff | March 8, 2005
OMG! This discussion has a picture now!!! I'm touched...and I don't mean touched in the head!
Woo-hoo!
Yeah, I'm pretty much easily amused! :D
Anna Gregoline | March 8, 2005
Yeah, now you just need a picture!
Aaron Shurtleff | March 9, 2005
Done and done! There's nothing more manly than...kickball? :)
John E Gunter | March 9, 2005
If I ever get the film in the camera developed, we'll have another picture of you. Course, there's still 4 or 5 more pictures left on the roll. I'm such a cheapie! ;-)
John
Amy Austin | March 9, 2005
Love the picture (full version), and *love* kickball! ;-)
Aaron Shurtleff | March 9, 2005
Thanks! It's the closest I'll ever get to being a sports star! Ha!
Reminds me of that scene from "Baseketball" (GREAT movie...the best):
"One day, I'll be a big sports star!"
*Time passes*
Dude! One day, I'll own a big sports bar!"
Erik Bates | March 10, 2005
[hidden by request]
Scott Horowitz | March 10, 2005
I was thinking more of Whitesnake Erik
Here I come again on my own. Walking down the only road I have ever known
I think that was the video where Tawny Kittain was dry humping the car.
Kris Weberg | March 10, 2005
Why does the conversation around here always wind up at dry-humping?
John E Gunter | March 10, 2005
Consider the source Kris! :-E
John
Anna Gregoline | March 10, 2005
Because some people must do a lot of it?
Amy Austin | March 10, 2005
Ouch... that's colder than the snow thread! ;DDD
Scott Horowitz | March 10, 2005
Hey, I swear she was awake when I started dry hu.....
Nevermind, smartasses.
Lori Lancaster | March 10, 2005
[hidden by request]
John E Gunter | March 10, 2005
Honest your honor, I swear... ;-)
Couldn't resist and no I'm not sorry!
But at least you got my name right, Scott Horowitz! ;-D
John
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Aaron Shurtleff | February 25, 2005
I wasn't certain what the proper protocol for this kind of thing was, but...
Well, I'm new here, and I would feel weird just randomly commenting when everyone would be thinking (even if just in my crazy imagination), "Who in Hell/Heck/The Abyss/Whatever is this guy?!?" So, I'll just write a quick and stupid hello, and then I'll feel like people will know what to expect from me.
I'm Aaron Shurtleff (pronounced with a hard shirt and a soft lef). I'm 31, but I'm one of those really wacko people who get annoyed by their age, so we'll never speak of this again. I live in lovely Saint Petersburg, Florida, which is way too hot for me (I was originally born in Maine, which everyone who isn't from Canada says is pretty much Canada, but there is a subtle difference). I've been married to a lovely woman named Jennifer (or Jen, but NEVER Jenny) for going on 5 years. I enjoy role-playing games, and I try not to take myself too seriously. Doesn't work so well, but I try.
I'm fairly open-minded, but I was raised as a catholic, so I do have some moral issues. I don't currently attend church, but I do feel that I am religious, but not agnostic (if that makes any sense let me know, because it doesn't to me).
Um...I think about weird things, and people usually regret asking me what I'm thinking about if I'm silent. Which I usually am, since I have some minor social anxiety issues (except for role-playing, oddly enough...I'm only nervous around people when I have to be myself...if that makes any sense). Drives my wife crazy, but then again, I'm kind of a crazy dude.
I only have, as far as I know, two real issues that could cause friction with other people.
1) I feel that all life is equally sacred, animal and vegetable. I don't take well to people who are vegetarians because they "respect life". A carrot is just as alive as a cow, which is just as alive as a fish or soybean. As Tool put it (God, I hate that I'm quoting a freakin' Tool song), "Life feeds on life". Be vegetarian if you like it, but don't try to tell me you're morally superior to me. You aren't.
2) When I was young I went to Boston. I hated it with a serious passion. I went again in high school. I hated it even more. I hate everything related to Boston now. I hate the Red Sox. I hate the Pats. I hate the Bruins. I hate all basketball, but especially the Celtics. This hatred has no logical basis, and cannot be reasoned. If someone here is from Boston, too bad. I won't apologize, but I hate Boston.
Well, I think that's it for now. I guess this can continue as a thread if people say Hi back, but that's up to all y'all. Anyone wants to give a short life history like this, I'll read it, but that's up to you all.
Talk to you all later, right?