Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!rutgers!bellcore!wind!tr From: tr@wind.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: Imported woman's Fox Fur Coats Message-ID: <3831@bellcore.bellcore.com> Date: Wed, 25-Nov-87 13:45:39 EST Article-I.D.: bellcore.3831 Posted: Wed Nov 25 13:45:39 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 06:50:39 EST References: <132@blic.BLI.COM> <4830@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <1841@chinet.UUCP> <5942@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1854@chinet.UUCP> Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com Reply-To: tr@wind.UUCP (tom reingold) Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, Noo Joizy Lines: 58 Keywords: Fox Coats In article <5942@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: sk> [...] sk> In the wild, humans would almost certainly have to sk> eat some meat, but not in places that have grocery stores selling lots sk> of non-meat sources of protein. Most intelligent people who are opposed sk> to cruelty to animals are opposed to unnecessary cruelty. It is necessary sk> for cats to eat meat. It is not necessary for a woman to have a chinchilla sk> coat. sk> [...] In response to that, in article <1854@chinet.UUCP>, rhonda@chinet (Rhonda Scribner) writes: rs> [...] rs> So killing a cow for your cat is all right, then? That sort of blows a rs> little hole in your "unnecessary cruelty" idea, doesn't it? rs> [...] I don't think so, if I may defend Skyler's point of view. Animals have their inherent natures. A sheep is docile and a lion kills for food. These are impossible to change. So are the inherent diets. A human being chooses his nature, and thus can choose his diet. We can survive on almost anything. If you call it cruel to kill a cow for your cat, I call it necessary cruelty, because that's the way it was intended. I don't see the necessity for humans to eat tons and tons of meat. A little, maybe. The recent medical evidence suggests that we eat far too much. There are many health detriments to eating lots of animal products. It has not been shown that a little is better or worse than none, though. Remember our economy is distorted. In societies where people have to kill their own, meat is hard to come by, the equivalent of being expensive. It's artificially low-priced here. I am of the belief that the medical and economic indicators mentioned above are something to base our ethics upon. This is abstract and certainly arguable. As I see it. Humans have the most flexible natures and it could be said that the only enherent part of us is that nothing else is inherent. We take on the qualities that we develop. Given this, it can be viewed, if you choose, to look at our eating animals as cruel. If it's necessary, it's probably not necessary to the extent that the average American slob eats bacon-and-eggs for breakfast, roast beef for lunch, and pot roast for dinner. Go try to kill that many animals yourself every day. It is necessary for cats to eat meat at every meal, for dogs at almost every meal. There is often some coherent discussion on these ethics found in the newsgroup rec.food.veg. *Both* sides are presented well, surprisingly. We could move this there. Tom Reingold INTERNET: tr@bellcore.bellcore.com Bell Communications Research UUCP:!bellcore!tr 435 South St room 2L350 SOUNDNET: (201) 829-4622 [work] Morristown, NJ 07960 (201) 287-2345 [home]