Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [valleyveg] NFL player

Expand Messages
  • veggoodness .
    Rob, it s a good point you make. It raises the interesting question of whether making some steps toward a more humane society (outrage over dog fighting) moves
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 19 10:28 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Rob, it's a good point you make. It raises the interesting question of
      whether making some steps toward a more humane society (outrage over dog
      fighting) moves the ball in the right direction, or if it serves as a
      conscience-salve for people who don't want to make the big changes (going
      vegetarian, not using animals in labs, etc).

      Personally, I think it's probably both, and it's good to keep the
      conversation going. I guess I'm an optimist and I think that the argument
      "If you did to your dog what a farmer can legally do to his chickens, you'd
      go to jail" is a very persuasive one that is hard for a meat-eater to
      ignore.

      Laura



      >From: "rmchiles1" <rmchiles1@...>
      >To: valleyveg@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [valleyveg] NFL player
      >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:06:27 -0000
      >
      >I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from expressing outrage
      >to the NFL, and I agree that it's sick, but let's have some
      >perspective here.
      >
      >The only thing Michael Vick is guilty of is torturing animals (and
      >dogs at that) for a form of entertainment that has been rejected by
      >bourgeoise-society. If he'd done the exact same thing for some
      >stupid, useless NIH experiment, this wouldn't even be a blip on the
      >radar screen. He'd be praised for "valuable research that saves
      >human lives." If he'd paid other people to do the exact same thing
      >to cows/pigs/birds being raised for food, people could care less.
      >
      >So before we delude ourselves into thinking that this national
      >outcry is about how animals are treated, just remember that people
      >NEED a Michael Vick to label as "the bad guy." Our national
      >conscience NEEDS someone to serve as a distraction and a panacea
      >from our own collective guilt over how we treat animals every day.
      >Dog fighting, cock fighting, these are non-mainstream activities
      >seen as the domain of "lower" people, and they're righteously
      >denounced so people can feel superior. "Oh! I care about animals!
      >Remember that one time we heard about Michael Vick? I put down my
      >chicken sandwich just so I could boo at the TV screen!"
      >
      >If we get involved in these issues, we need to frame them in terms
      >of the big picture; otherwise, we're just helping people feel better
      >about their own wretched treatment of animals. Just some thoughts.
      >
      >Upward and onward,
      >
      >Rob
      >

      _________________________________________________________________
      http://liveearth.msn.com
    • Jack Norris
      I was listening to KHTK sports talk radio yesterday afternoon and the local Sacramento talk host, Grant Napier was discussing the Michael Vick indictment.
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 19 10:49 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I was listening to KHTK sports talk radio yesterday afternoon and the local
        Sacramento talk host, Grant Napier was discussing the Michael Vick
        indictment. Someone called up and asked what the difference was between what
        Vick did and what Brad Miller does (Miller is a Kings player and a hunter).
        Grant got huffy about it, defending Miller (and I don't fully disagree given
        that Miller isn't breaking any laws while Vick did) and then asked the guy
        if he was a vegetarian. The caller said he wasn't a vegetarian but insisted
        that there was no difference between Vick and Miller (and he was saying that
        what both of them do is bad). Napier told the caller that if he really felt
        that way he should be a vegetarian. He also said he thought the caller was
        crazy or something to that effect.

        Anyway, I thought it was a very interesting conversation and while Napier
        defended Miller, he didn't disparage vegetarians either.

        Jack Norris
        Vegan Outreach
        www.veganoutreach.org


        > Rob, it's a good point you make. It raises the interesting question of
        > whether making some steps toward a more humane society (outrage over dog
        > fighting) moves the ball in the right direction, or if it serves as a
      • veggoodness .
        Interesting. I always wish I could take part in conversations like this. I m glad to hear that the radio host was rational and thoughtful. Me, I don t think
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 19 11:25 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Interesting. I always wish I could take part in conversations like this. I'm
          glad to hear that the radio host was rational and thoughtful.

          Me, I don't think hunting and dog fighting are anywhere near equivalent.
          Hunting is about as close to humane as a human carnivore can get. Animals
          eat other animals in nature, and arguably death by hunter's bullet is more
          humane than many of the other ways that a wild animal can die. (Wild animals
          don't die in their sleep of old age. It's starvation, disease, accident
          (e.g. getting hit by a car), injury/infection, predation, hypothermia, etc.)
          And hunting is also more humane than the way most farmed animals live and
          die. I have much less of a problem with hunting than I do with factory
          farming. Especially if the hunter actually uses the animal parts instead of
          just killing for fun.

          Dog fighting, on the other hand, forces animals to be extremely savage to
          each other in order to survive. There is no possibility of escape. It is
          slavery and torment from birth to death. At least a deer gets to be a deer
          for most of its life. These dogs never get a chance to be dogs.

          Laura




          >From: "Jack Norris" <jacknorris@...>
          >To: <valleyveg@yahoogroups.com>
          >Subject: Re: [valleyveg] NFL player
          >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:49:32 -0700
          >
          >I was listening to KHTK sports talk radio yesterday afternoon and the local
          >Sacramento talk host, Grant Napier was discussing the Michael Vick
          >indictment. Someone called up and asked what the difference was between
          >what
          >Vick did and what Brad Miller does (Miller is a Kings player and a hunter).
          >Grant got huffy about it, defending Miller (and I don't fully disagree
          >given
          >that Miller isn't breaking any laws while Vick did) and then asked the guy
          >if he was a vegetarian. The caller said he wasn't a vegetarian but insisted
          >that there was no difference between Vick and Miller (and he was saying
          >that
          >what both of them do is bad). Napier told the caller that if he really felt
          >that way he should be a vegetarian. He also said he thought the caller was
          >crazy or something to that effect.
          >
          >Anyway, I thought it was a very interesting conversation and while Napier
          >defended Miller, he didn't disparage vegetarians either.
          >
          >Jack Norris
          >Vegan Outreach
          >www.veganoutreach.org
          >
          >
          > > Rob, it's a good point you make. It raises the interesting question of
          > > whether making some steps toward a more humane society (outrage over dog
          > > fighting) moves the ball in the right direction, or if it serves as a
          >
          >

          _________________________________________________________________
          Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!�
          http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.