To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 10990
10989  |  10991
Subject: 
McViegh, Libertarian, and Vegans (aka What a Party!)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 17 Jun 2001 04:45:09 GMT
Viewed: 
174 times
  
The following appears in the July 2001 issue of Harper's Magazine on
page 20.  It's McViegh's response to a guy from PETA who asked McViegh
to make a political statement by having a vegan last meal.  I thought it
would be interesting to post here in light of a few recent threads...

<begin quote>
Bruce,
  You should have seen the local editorial response to your letter.  You
gotta remember, this is meat-eatin' farm country; still, good job
getting the attention to your cause (like protesting dead rats on
Survivior),
  Truth is, I understand your cause--I've seen slaughterhouses
myself--but I still believe in _reasonable) taking and eating of game
(as an outdoorsman and hunter).  I cannot sustain a prolonged
intellectual debate, as my time is short, but I do suggest hitting Ted
Kacynski up for his opinions on the subject.
  My one main problem with the "veg" movement (besides the fact that I
am libertarian) is this:  Where do you draw the line, and what standard
is used to draw that line?  Those that are in it for health benifits
accept poultry and fish as edible.  WHere do those that oppose suffering
stand? (Ever see a fish struggling out of water?)  What about
grubs/worms/etc.?  And finally, _plants are alive, too_: they react to
stimuli (including "pain"), have circulatory systems, etc.; so how about
them? To me, the answer is as the Indians believed: _respect_ the life
you take to sustain yourself, but come to terms with your place in the
food chain.
Best of luck,
Tim

<end qoute>

-chris



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: McViegh, Libertarian, and Vegans (aka What a Party!)
 
Wow! Truly a surrealistic reading. Hard to agree with the words of a mass-murderer but, objectively speaking, there were some interesting points brought up. Thanks, Chris. Dan (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  McViegh is no Libertarian
 
Snipping all but one statement away to make a key point. (...) Judge outcomes not statements... This creature is no more libertarian than Scott Arthur is. Maybe he forgot the pledge he signed about not initiating the use of force? Maybe he didn't (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

11 Messages in This Thread:





Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR