🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <53275@mimsy.umd.edu> peyote@umiacs.umd.edu (Gary W. Flake) 
writes:

>>dipster@wam.umd.edu (Sandip Dasgupta) writes:
>>  Cherry, you is one sick pup, and ignorant like the rest. 
>>  [other excellent points regarding environmental concerns deleted]


>Let me get this strait: You want me to kill all of the meat that I
>eat? I suppose that you also want me to grow my own food, construct my
>own home, as well as create my own medicine. After all, it is well
>known that there is corruption in all of these industries.

"strait" refers to a narrow body of water connecting two larger bodies of 
water; perhaps you meant "straight".  i think Sandip's point was simply one 
of emphasizing connection & assuming responsibility.  Like it or not, when 
one purchases meat, one is buying into an inefficient system which is 
pulling our world apart at its ecological seams.  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.


>I like having convieniences. Because people specialize, we become
>more adept at specific areas. I'll take the prepackaged chicken,
>thank you.

i think you meant "conveniences", unless you're trying to invent a new word.


>> Also, it is apparent that you 
>>give no regard to the feeling of chickens.. thats something
>>that you need to arrive at yourself-I cant teach it to you, [...]

>Oh, you are sooo very moral. It must be frustrating to have to deal
>with the likes of us. Teach us, oh master!

does "reading comprehension" mean anything to you?  Sandip just said that 
he *can't* teach you compassion!  For that matter, neither can I, 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 may mock my ideas 
by referring to them as being "sooo moral", but at least i've arrived at my 
ideas by subjecting myself to scenarios which challenged aspects of my 
upbringing and the indoctrination of the status quo.  I wonder if you can 
say as much about your *thinking* (not condescending: thinking) on the issue.


>>[...] but are
>>you aware that Perdue's factory conditionsa are deploarable.
>>A large number of his employees are black women who cant support
>>themselves in other ways and thus are forced to endure the
>>nervous system destruction that inflicts a huge percentage 
>>of his workers?

>And are you aware of the fact that if the alternative was not worse
>(i.e. they remained unemployed) they workers would quit. No one holds
>a gun to their heads and say "You must skin chickens, or else..."
>Grow up. Some jobs just plain suck.

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).

>Oh yes. I forgot. I'm supposed be concerned with the feelings of
>chickens. (A dog is a pig is a rat is a boy...) Wrong. If a chicken
>ever starts to recite poetry then come and see me. I'll consider
>it's feelings. Until then, let's eat meat.

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 
could have avoided this grammatical pitfall had you had the intelligence to 
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.  Believe it or not, animals *do* suffer; 
they are not inanimate machinery.  

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?

Finally, don't be so hasty in your conclusions ... when you say, "let's eat 
meat", I say, "Keep me out of it!".  I prefer not to treat my body as a 
waste disposal.


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