“As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields as well.” (Leo Tolstoi)
We are deeply concerned about the welfare of animals, whether for laboratory research, mass farming or forced suffering in other ways. We consider animals as our fellow-beings deserving our respect - this is why all Salem villages are vegetarian.
In many Salem institutions there are horses and many other animals as children develop sympathy towards animals by learning how to care for them and to love them.
(Taken from the Salem website)
Dear Thom,
I'm a bit confused as to why you, a pupil of Herr Mueller's, can allow certain pictures of shot and killed ducks and fish to be posted in this section of your website:
(I can't help but recall the pond with the fish that Herr Mueller saved.)
It is not up to me to pass judgment, therefore I won't resort to judging either you or the posters of these pictures. However, I would like to know why this is allowed. I cannot find anything in the Terms of Service regarding animal abuse, and have not heard anything back (or seen any actions taken) after having reported one particular post.
Can you please enlighten me?
Respectfully, A Salem-sister
"We have learned how to fly like the birds, to swim like the fish, yet we have forgotten how to live like brothers... " ~ Martin Luther King
Posts: 140 | Location: Universe | Registered: 07 January 2007
I randomly opened my copy of The Prophet's Way and this was what I read: (From chapter: 'Uganda')
"As you can imagine, this experience was powerful evidence to me that Herr Mueller was right when he predicted an accelerating confluence of events and influences with disastrous consequences. But what to do in the face of such a situation? Do what's right: acts of mercy, without regard for the seemingly overwhelming odds. The odds only matter if you're playing the odds. The magnitude of the problem only matters if you'll only accept a "well-engineered" response. What's right is a different matter."
Even in the face of injustice of any kind, whether it's towards Uganda, animals, the environment or politics, the outcomes are changeable. It's not like one action will automatically lead to a certain consequence or re-action. That's how the binary setup of this world we've created works, imo. And to have people posting pictures and bragging about having shot animals will work in various ways, such as a bigger counter-balance in the form of people who understand what Herr Mueller meant when he said (and continues to show) that animals are our fellow-beings that deserve our respect. And the importance of that for places such as this website.
It's important to this world to have this counter-balance, that's why we're still clinging on to it.
Animal rights might seem like a minor subject, next to US politics and abortion, which are the favorite topics of this site. But in truth, it fits right in there with those topics, especially when one understands Salem-principles. In my opinion, I asked a polite question, without implying that anyone has lost it. I am still hoping on a response, and if it comes, I hope it won't be a "well-engineered" one...
Hope, I believe, is more powerful than overwhelming odds. And well-engineered responses
Early shabat shalom to you
Posts: 140 | Location: Universe | Registered: 07 January 2007
Implicit in the violence against animals is the inherent violence in its many forms embedded in our still patriarchal at heart medieval European based society; included is all sorts of racism, groupisms, sexism, anti environmentalism, and so forth, and involved in that is the devaluing of many of our more important inter-connective features such as empathy (assigned to the feminine), affect (assigned to the feminine) and attention to all the less linearly rational forms of our awareness (assigned to feminine, then race or groups, like artists).
I don't quite understand why we are getting this flood of discussions about guns, the joys of owning them, the skills of using them, and the descriptions of the joy some seem to get at another's (a woman's of course) reactions to something like witnessing of their murdering of a crow about to crap on the windshield of their precious pickup truck. But it does create an atmosphere, and I've noticed even normally peaceful posters responding with some momentary hostility -- but fortunately then regain their balance, a good sign.
I fish a little. I don't hunt but I eat meat. I guess I'm more comfortable having someone else do the killing for me. After participating on the Nugent board a long time ago, I came to realize that people who hunt and don't support factory farming are less hypocritical than those who preach animal rights and eat the occasional hamburger or chicken sandwich.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by Sawdust: I fish a little. I don't hunt but I eat meat. I guess I'm more comfortable having someone else do the killing for me. After participating on the Nugent board a long time ago, I came to realize that people who hunt and don't support factory farming are less hypocritical than those who preach animal rights and eat the occasional hamburger or chicken sandwich.
Personal hypocrisy is the issue, all right. But the question arises around whether a recognition of hypocrisy has even occurred by the practitioners. To understand that, one needs to look closer at the structure of any given society. Ariel23 has raised that question regarding Thom and what he is willing to tolerate here on this board.
I came to realize that people who hunt and don't support factory farming are less hypocritical than those who preach animal rights and eat the occasional hamburger or chicken sandwich.
Mostly I agree with that statement, but I think it depends on where they are getting their meat. There is still some old fashioned animal husbandry on family farms, which is fast disappearing as factory farms become the norm. I heard on the radio, I think on Thom's show the other day, that most American's food travels over 1000 miles to market. In Italy, it's 24 miles to market.
------------------------------------ We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them.
Posts: 1855 | Location: here and now | Registered: 22 September 2005
I came to realize that people who hunt and don't support factory farming are less hypocritical than those who preach animal rights and eat the occasional hamburger or chicken sandwich.
Mostly I agree with that statement, but I think it depends on where they are getting their meat. There is still some old fashioned animal husbandry on family farms, which is fast disappearing as factory farms become the norm. I heard on the radio, I think on Thom's show the other day, that most American's food travels over 1000 miles to market. In Italy, it's 24 miles to market.
It was on Tuesday the 12th's show, and Thom stated the average distance store-bought food travels is 1500 miles. He had Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3) on the show, who is heading up the Food and Farm Bill of Rights efforts (website). Congressman Blumenauer stated that Thom was close, that the average food mile is 1450.
Ariel23 has raised that question regarding Thom and what he is willing to tolerate here on this board.
There is no such thing as free speech on a message board. It isn't my place to suggest what he should tolerate. The only question is whether or not I participate. As long as I've been here and as much termoil as the board has gone through, I guess I can personally tolerate a lot.
I am not easily offended but I am easily ammused.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Food miles are the distance food has travelled from its point of origin to you. In America, retail experts calculate that the average distance for any one item of food is around 1,100 miles. The contents of the average European shopping trolley travel 2,200 miles. —Joanna Blythman, "Eat local and sever the food chains," The Independent, October 23, 1993
Lisa, you must realize that a lot of that distance will matter about location and regulations. Living in Alaska, showed me that if Alaska had to depend on its own food sources, they would all starve.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Ariel23 has raised that question regarding Thom and what he is willing to tolerate here on this board.
There is no such thing as free speech on a message board. It isn't my place to suggest what he should tolerate. The only question is whether or not I participate. As long as I've been here and as much termoil as the board has gone through, I guess I can personally tolerate a lot.
I am not easily offended but I am easily ammused.
Maybe you'll have to ask Ariel23 why she's raised the question. Otherwise I'm not quite sure what you are addressing. I don't see that asking a question about whether someone is acting hypocritically is the same as suggesting what should be tolerated. Perhaps if Thom explained his position her question would be answered.
Maybe you'll have to ask Ariel23 why she's raised the question. Otherwise I'm not quite sure what you are addressing. I don't see that asking a question about whether someone is acting hypocritically is the same as suggesting what should be tolerated. Perhaps if Thom explained his position her question would be answered.
I asked the question because it seemed so very contradictional to the person that I learned Thom to be through his books about the environment and about Herr Mueller to have these kinds of photos on a corporate website intended to enhance his career.
quote:
The only question is whether or not I participate.
That's very true, Sawdust. This was part of why I asked the question. I didn't mean to suggest what he should or should not tolerate or allow, but I was trying to understand his motivation for having those photos on and on the same time be part of what Salem entails. It's not judgment, nor am I saying that the two can't go together. I myself eat meat, on occasion, especially now that I am pregnant. And I too find it difficult sometimes to combine that in my mind with the teachings and beliefs of Salem. I found a way in my heart, and I was just wondering about Thom, and how he did this in relation to these pictures.
Basically, if his explanation (if it even comes) is a 'well-engineered' response that I can't understand or with which I disagree, I will decide whether or not to continue to participate here. I cannot change anyone's thoughts, but I can choose to be subjected to it or not.
quote:
I don't quite understand why we are getting this flood of discussions about guns, the joys of owning them, the skills of using them, and the descriptions of the joy some seem to get at another's (a woman's of course) reactions to something like witnessing of their murdering of a crow about to crap on the windshield of their precious pickup truck.
Maybe it comes from the cavemen: After all, the hunters were the ones that were held in high esteem by the women. I'm sure in some ways, and with some women, they still are.
Posts: 140 | Location: Universe | Registered: 07 January 2007
Maybe it comes from the cavemen: After all, the hunters were the ones that were held in high esteem by the women. I'm sure in some ways, and with some women, they still are.
Lol, well, there has been some evidence that in some hunter gathering groups, women may have provided the bulk of the food through gathering. There is also evidence that both hunted, and both gathered. So, take your stereotype, none of us were there 30,000 years ago to actually witness how they did things.
A motherbear will kill in order to feed her babies. Gorillas attack each other and others whom they feel threatened by. Animals have a killer instinct and strive to survive. In that regard, humankind is no different, nor more violent, in my opinion. I'm not sure how assigned 'feminine' qualities have to do with this basic sense of survival that life has?
Posts: 140 | Location: Universe | Registered: 07 January 2007
A motherbear will kill in order to feed her babies. Gorillas attack each other and others whom they feel threatened by. Animals have a killer instinct and strive to survive. In that regard, humankind is no different, nor more violent, in my opinion. I'm not sure how assigned 'feminine' qualities have to do with this basic sense of survival that life has?
Not the same order of comparison. Feminine in the sense I am referring to it is a gender issue that has a historical cultural evolution, survival is more basic than that.
First I'd recognize that gender and sex are not precise overlaps. Like the following Venn diagram, imagine "A" is sex and "B" is gender:
Female/male is the biology of sex, feminine/masculine is the gender meanings assigned to sex. For instance, one may refer to a male as "effeminate" and that is talking in terms of gender. Gender is a cultural assignment of meanings. Cross cultural studies have demonstrated a range of meanings that don't all fall cleanly into, say, Western categorical assignments. So you can get another Venn diagram that has all cultural meanings for masculine and all cultural meanings for feminine and you will undoubtedly have some more overlap between genders.
It does make sense, but what I'm struggling with is sense vs. sensibility.
Basically, I have looked at it from another side: Gender has a cultural evolution, but on the other hand it is also basic, because the qualities you described are tied to the emotional plane. Emotions are basic.
Survival is a basic, but in a way it's also culturally evolved. When in a traumatic situation, we tend to flee or fight. Those are emotional reflexes. But now our evolved brain is able to flee through dissociation. The early cavemen couldn't do that, they would probably flee physically.
And we also fight differently, which depends on our historical and cultural evolution.
I know it's a different angle from what you're suggesting. I hope I'm not boring you with too much one-sided analysis.
Posts: 140 | Location: Universe | Registered: 07 January 2007
Originally posted by ariel23: It does make sense, but what I'm struggling with is sense vs. sensibility.
Basically, I have looked at it from another side: Gender has a cultural evolution, but on the other hand it is also basic, because the qualities you described are tied to the emotional plane. Emotions are basic.
Survival is a basic, but in a way it's also culturally evolved. When in a traumatic situation, we tend to flee or fight. Those are emotional reflexes. But now our evolved brain is able to flee through dissociation. The early cavemen couldn't do that, they would probably flee physically.
And we also fight differently, which depends on our historical and cultural evolution.
I know it's a different angle from what you're suggesting. I hope I'm not boring you with too much one-sided analysis.
I don't see a different angle really. If you look at the Venn diagram idea, you'll see that there's the overlap of what is sex and what is gender. That accounts for what's also basic in gender, as you noted. In males and females physically there is also a lot of overlap that basic physical plane.
It's very difficult to say what our ancestors of 30,000 to 40,000 years did psychologically -- the anatomically modern humans, according to the fossil record. Theoretically physical anthropologist postulate that an anatomically modern human then could be brought into modern society as an infant and would learn to be well within the range of a modern human today. The implication is that the hardwiring that we have is pretty much the same, and that what we are able to create with our abstractly created sense of fear, along with the psychological patterns of defense you are talking about, would be just as easy for them to do.
As you noted, fighting is learned.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: /rén,
Lisa, you must realize that a lot of that distance will matter about location and regulations. Living in Alaska, showed me that if Alaska had to depend on its own food sources, they would all starve.
Hmm, tell that to the Inuit of the last several thousand years!
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: Lisa, you must realize that a lot of that distance will matter about location and regulations. Living in Alaska, showed me that if Alaska had to depend on its own food sources, they would all starve.
Hmm, tell that to the Inuit of the last several thousand years!
Yes, I realize that argument. First you have to look at it with an eye toward regulations. They have tried to increase the Moose population in some locations but Friends of Animals are trying to block those efforts.
Would you consider that a "good American diet"? As was asked of others on this board: are you willing to give up your bananas, coffee, etc?
But you must realize that now the population is much larger than before the settlers. Do you honestly want those people to live like the Intuits? And thus to possibly destroy the biggest park in the world (Alaska)?
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Discussion Community 
