>On Sat, 6 Jan 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Richard Twine wrote:
>> >I was also slightly disturbed by the
>> >argument that tries to legitimate meat-eating which says: we are animals
>> >and other
>> >animals kill so why can't we? Convenient essentialism. The word
>>"animal" is a
>> >politically appropriated category. Sometimes it suits the dominant
>>ideology to
>> >assert difference from other animals and at other times such as in the above
>> >example similarity is conveniently asserted.
>>
>> So does that make other animals superior to humans or what?
>
>No it doesn't. How did the above statement make you come to that
>conclusion, anyway?
Not a conclusion, but a question. (note the punct) It just seems that the
argumentation bears a put down of humans--an animal--because they are
omnivores (part time meat-eaters), while exalting eagles and such for
eating salmons.
> What requires
>> humans to forgo eating other animals?
>
>Again, I'm really suprised that I am hearing these statements on the
>_ecofem-list_.
Why? Does ecofeminism imply veggyism? It's easy to be pro-environment (I
don't like pollution and stuff.) and a feminist and yet get a thrill out of
a Whopper at Peter's Burger Drive-in. Or a pan full of great sausages and
eggs.
If you care about the environment, you *should* abstain from
>eating animals, why? Because millions of acres of rainforest (including
>the species indigenous to the rainforest) have been destroyed to
>make space for cattle. Without the trees huge amounts of topsoil is lost
>to erosion.
Okay, I see that, but theres ways to fix that and have farms too.
Millions of tons of grain that are fed to cattle every year
>could be fed to hungry people instead. Etc., etc.
Thats contradictory. If your paragraph above is valid, then there shouldn't
be wheat to feed the hungry either because the fields wouldn't be there to
grow it. They would starve anyway so its not an argument.
Also, as a _feminist_
>you should see and comprehend the similarities between meat eating and
>patriarchy.
That sounds dumb to me. A good hamburger is a good hamburger. Men don't
have anything to do with it necessarily. Anybody can make and like
hamburgers or roast turkey, chicken fingers, etc
> Does this apply to other carnivores?
>
>No it doesn't because animal carnivores *do not* have the choice. Their
>biological makeup dictates their diet, the only way for them to survive
>independently and otherwise, is to eat the dead carcass of other
>animals. Humans on the other hand, *do* have the choice and the
>biological ability to survive (in a very healthy way) without consuming
>the dead carcasses of other animals. Me and millions(?) of other humans
>are living examples.
>
>> If so, how do we enforce it? (A firend of mine saw live rats and rabbits
>> being fed to aligators in a pet store.)
>
>I reject the notion of holding wild animals prisoner for the mere
>amusement and pleasure of humans. It's disgusting and inhumane.
>
> How do we persuade coyotees from
>> eating whatever animals they eat. (rabbits?)
>
>See above arguments.
>
> Are vegetarian animals
>> superior to meat eaters? what gives us the right to any living thing
>> including veggies? Maybe lettuce has a mind or something.
>
>Veggies do not posess the ability to feel pain, to run/move away from
>predators, etc. In any case, even if someone was to say that they did
>"have a mind," it remains highly speculative, whereas we know for a _fact_
>that animals feel pain, etc. So, lets stick to "what we know" until we
>have further evidence.
>
>> I think I still like pooched salmon
>
>And you call yourself an *Eco-feminist*?!?
Sure. I'm for clean rivers and think men should be put in there place. But
it doesn't mean I need to half starve on nuts and apples.
