From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:51:28 GMT

In article <BxuG2r.3EM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:

>From article <1992Nov16.235333.24352@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@m
agnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>jh> Assuming that we all agree with Ted's universal ethic that "the
>jh> less [unwanted] pain I inflict, the better" and furthermore
>jh> assuming that we all agreed that advocacy toward eliminating
>jh> certain actions to which beef cattle are subjected was necessary,
>jh> then I believe that Russell Lawrence--who consumes "meat from
>jh> time to time"--would be far better placed to sit down, enjoy a
>jh> steak with the cattle operators, highlight to them his concerns,
>jh> and perhaps decrease suffering in the world than would Ted.
>jh> Russell is no hypocrite for eating and wearing animals while
>jh> holding the beliefs he does.
>
>I'm not sure that I understand your point.   It's not likely that
>I would consume meat under such circumstances.  On the other hand,
>I wouldn't hurl a steak back into the face of a "cattle operator"
>who's offered it to me with kind intentions.  I would thank him
>kindly but explain that I prefer vegetables to meat.
>
>The sort of "fundamentalism" that you may perceive among some
>animal rights advocates is primarily found among folks who've
>just recently become aware of the problems caused by animal
>(mis)use.  Activists with experience dating over decades, however,
>understand that true social change takes a lot of time and a lot
>of understanding and is unlikely to be enhanced by rigid conformance
>to a set of absolutist rules.
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Russell, I see you then somewhat like some of my Hindu friends, they
simply state that they don't eat meat and leave it at that, while making
their stoves and dinner tables available to the meat eaters.  This
has been the cultural pattern of their civilization for millenia.
Of course, in many of the cultures around the world meat eating has
been accepted for just as long.  I would also point out that the Hindu
and Muslim have a long history of coexistence on the Indian continent.
I would doubt that in those instances where the Hindu and Muslim tragically
are killing each other we can point to dietary choice as the fundamental
cause of their animus.  When you say true social change takes a lot of time
I'd agree.

Thus, in spite of your recognition that many of your "fundamentalist"
animals rights colleagues lack the long term vision of social change
that you do, I think at times you too lack a realistic sense of the
time frame involved before your quested after elimination of the "misuse"
of our animal brothers and sisters.  I also think that (again, only
what I perceive) the intolerance and zealotry of your "fundamentalist"
kin destroys opportunity for staking out areas where the "AR-Heads" and
the "torturers of animals" realistically could meet.  All I mean to say is
that in the short-term (which I take to mean hundreds of years), those
people who really are best placed to make the significant "action"
contributions are--and I realize the irony--the hunters, the research
scientists, the omnivores, the people in this society who can sit down
and break bread with the "misusers" of animals.