🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ac.49@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ac@apmaths.uwo.ca (alka chandna) writes:
> Many people don't realize 
> the real cost of meat in terms of resource depletion, since the industry is 
> so heavily subsidized.  Even as a mere metaphorical illustration, the point 
> is powerful:  the ethical and environmental costs become clear when one sees 
                    ^^^^^^^                   ^^^^^
> the situation face to face.

First off there is no ethical cost - homo sapiens is a hunter/gatherer that
evolved to husbandry.  Our survival adaptations included eating meat, both
wild and domesticated.  If your consience can't deal with that then ok, 
but it would have meant the end of your line 20,000 years ago.

> but I 
> would suggest that you open your eyes a little to try and understand what a 
> chicken is all about.  Blindly accepting the notion that chickens are dumb 
> animals that operate as automata is precisely that.  

You of course have discussed this with the chickens and understand their 
feelings from personal experience.

> why don't *you* grow up.  to say that a choice between a shitty job and 
> unemployment is a choice is patently false.  there is such a thing as a 
> metaphorical gun (Frances Moore Lappe wrote a most excellent book on this 
> topic - the title, if I recall, is "Rediscovering America's Values" - and in 
> this she addresses this notion of the phantom nature of many so-called 
> choices).

Ms Lappe wrote that in a book so it MUST be true!

> First of all, if you wanted to use the word "its" to refer to the feelings 
> of the chicken, the apostrophe is not included in this possessive.  You 

Feeling pretty smug now aren't you 

> could have avoided this grammatical pitfall had you had the intelligence to 
                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ooooh a superiority complex also

> realize that a chicken is not an article or an inanimate object; try "his or 
> her feelings".  This could be your first step in liberating yourself from 
> your Cartesian way of thinking. 

You think this way, now we all have to.  Do you need that to justify your
choices?

> I'm a bit humoured by your insistence on waiting for a chicken to recite 
> poetry; meanwhile, your spelling and grammar both suck the big one, your 
> reading comprehension leaves something to be desired, and your credentials 
> also suffer from the fact that you quote people out of context (then again, 
> I doubt that even if your life depended on it, you could offer the context 
> from which you took Ingrid Newkirk's quotation).  Okay, so you call me a 
> pedantic academic?  Fine, I have no problem with that.  Earlier today, I 
> decided that I would dine on people who misused the word "it's" and erred in 
> their spelling.  Pretty arbitrary line-drawing, n'est pas?

Funny how a little bit of education can swell the head.  Quite the petty
little asshole aren't you!

> Frank Perdue today, other slaughterers later today.
> -- alka

Alka, you have made some personal choices, you have the right to defend them
and express your point of view, but this smarmy exercise in intellectualism
destroys your argument.

Have a nice day ;-)


-- 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Terry Cunningham terry@rsi.prc.com | I got a bike and I got a bird        |
 | DoD# 541   (Yup, another newbie)   |                    Madness           |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+