- McSpotlight -

the pleasure of killing

Posted by: Stuart Gort ( USA ) on November 26, 1997 at 01:23:05:

In Reply to: Welcome back, Stu posted by The Everett Citizen on November 25, 1997 at 19:20:49:

: EC
: The vast majority of meat eaten is for the pleasure of men & women. Very little (if any) meat is required for a healthy diet. Most meat that is eaten is a luxury and a "pleasure." I think fewer would eat meat if they didn't have an underclass to kill it, clean it, wrap it and display it in as non-animal-like fashion as possible for them.

I meant pleasure as a hunter might enjoy the pleasure of killing. That is a waste. I'm not going to tell anyone HOW MUCH meat they can eat.
Are you?

It's true that people are removed from the more visceral aspects of life. What do you propose to do about it - turn back time? Do you wish to discourage eating anything you didn't kill yourself? Does that extend to wives who eat their husband's kill? How about the kids? If you can't draw the line at immediate family, where will you draw it? If you can't draw it anywhere you must accept that society has regulated it's self on this issue.

I wouldn't want to imply that it is "underclass" to butcher and package
meat for a living. Or that it serves only the upper class. Everyone in the social order eats meat. If you're not careful, you'll get your way and the "underclass" will lose it's job. Ponder that.

: EC
: There is not yet a shortage of land, only a glut of "ownership" by greedy people who "own" more than they need suppliy their needs. They "own" more than they need so they can profit from those who "own" none. Ownership is less relevant than access and equality. You are accurate when you describe laws as protection of property from those who have none. So lets change it!

No! How much land is too much? Who is going to decide that issue? Are
you? The people who own no land now have a prospect to own land. There is PLENTY of it for sale, like you say. No one will appreciate what they have unless it is earned. No system of wisdom or ethics has ever said otherwise except yours - which has never worked in practice.

: EC
: When enough people are concerned with right and wrong, factory "farming" will indeed be a thing of the greedy past. Cheap and safe? Cheap to you, not so cheap to the egg producers and farmers forced out of business by factory methods. Safe? Don't hold your breath. Hormones, antibiotics, drugs, and untold additives, not to mention the stressful "living" conditions of factory "farmed" animals all have effects on the quality of the product. (How is it people can see the deceptions and manipulations of "big tobacco" and not see that the same things apply to "big egg" "big meat" "big beer" "big produce" or "big anything" ???)

When does something stop being small and become big? Who is going to
decide this issue? You? Great! MicroManagingMike! There are people working in government who have spent far more time studying food growing and handling than you or I. If you can't defer to their judgment on this because you perceive them to be collaborators with "big" interests, tell me why millions of pounds of hamburger are pulled from the market because of a POSSIBILITY of e-coli. It must be that every now and then the FDA has to flex it's muscles to look effective to the masses, eh? With respect to additives and such, It may be that these things affect quality but, who is going to determine quality? You? The market will determine what it wants without your help. If additives have proved deleteroius to human health we can argue, but this is not apparent.

: EC
: So once again the bottom line IS money. And the way those with a concience OPPOSE the concentration of it and the abuses that result from the concentration of it. Who's really guilty?

If every person had an equal share of it, would that seem fair to you?
It seems to me that freedom requires the possibility and the inevitability of unequal distribution. Every one of my comments were geared toward showing that you and your philosophy will get in between a person and his freedom. I value freedom way beyond any notion of "economic justice". I would never use my freedom to hurt anyone because
I can wield it responsibly. If you take my freedom away by limiting my
choises to what YOU perceive is right, you have imposed your values on me. I thought that was wrong.

Stuart Gort

P.S. Thanks for caring about the injury. There have been complications
which kept me away for a while, but it is behind me for the most part.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup