|
goo
The snow collects the good with the bad, as can be seen when it melts. This blog is my snow, holding onto my experiences. |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2007 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July My Links Hopie26 Inkspector Natala Snowbird Sound of Harmony Apokalipsis Alternate Space Old School FREE!! IBC Canvas The Church in Bethesda tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: hopie (reply) post date: 12.27.04 (11:33 pm) Did Kenny join in? And does your Dad help with other cooking/baking adventures? My Dad usually helps frost a Christmas cookie or two. He also helps dye eggs at Easter - he is very creative and it is nice to have a guy in the kitchen to help sometimes! Chuck helped cut out cookies this year, he did a really great job! posted by: Erin (reply) post date: 12.28.04 (5:05 am) Reply to: hopie Kenny didn't. I'm pretty sure he refuses to. Dad grills and gardens- and makes his own lunch, snacks, and sometimes breakfast. He also picks up after himself, and spends a big portion of Saturday cleaning and repairing things. Oh, and he washes the towels and rags Thursdays (from everywhere- the bathroom, kitchen, etc.- I think it's a good system.) He's pretty good at sharing chores and responsibilities. I don't know why I gave so much detail here, but he does help a lot, and I would like to give him credit. Kenny is great at cookies, and baking some for my mom was actually her Christmas gift- they were those peanut butter blossoms!! mmm- I suggested that he come to California and share an aprtment w/ me- he could cook! I don't think he'll seriously consider it. posted by: trickangle (reply) post date: 12.29.04 (7:55 pm) That does sound gross. I wouldn't give up eating meat for it, though. Just remember, though, when talking down about hunting, killing animals, etc., that it is not so inhumane as you might think. If you hunt to eat what you kill, it is actually more respectful of the animal than going to a McDonald's. Sort of like the Indians when they would honor the beats they killed, but they still understood that God (aka the Great Spirit) had given them as food. Also, hunting can help (especially with deer) prevent a lot of animals from being killed senselessly and from endangering people's lives (such as when driving) when there are too many of a certain species. That happened this year, for example, with deer in Duluth. They are thinking of adding a special bow hunting season because there are just too many of them, and if the hunters don't kill them, the cars will. So, unlike what a lot of "animal rights" people would say, hunting is not so cruel to the animals after all. It's a very practical link in the food chain when used responsibly. posted by: trickangle (reply) post date: 12.29.04 (7:56 pm) Btw, in case anybody wonders, thtat was meant to say "beasts," not "beats." Although I'm sure they respected their vegetables too. posted by: Erin (reply) post date: 12.30.04 (6:56 am) Reply to: trickangle Good point about overpopulation, Chuck. I can see the necessity in it in that case- but still, when I link the food I'm eatting to an animal, I can lose my appetite. I have eatten chicken, ham, and beef since making kielabasa, but I cooked none of them myself, and didn't think of the animal. Maybe it's something immature that I do that I'll grow out of w/ more cooking experience. posted by: Chuck (reply) post date: 12.30.04 (11:44 am) Reply to: Erin I'm not sure it's immature; I think it just comes down to learning to overrule your emotions with what you know is true. Sort of like when you're a kid and you're afraid of the dark, you know you shouldn't be but you still are, what I mean is you know it's not logical; so it's not immature to be afraid of the dark, but you do have to train your mind to overcome your emotions when it's dark outside. (Hope this makes sense.) In other words, sometimes emotions are good, sometimes bad, you have to let your mind be the final answer though in determining that. posted by: Aaron (reply) post date: 01.05.05 (2:43 pm) Reply to: Chuck Erin said that she's comfortable eatting meat when she doesn't think about where it comes from or what is actually done to it -- i.e. when she doesn't prepare it herself. I think a lot of people are that way. However, I don't think this is a case of learning to overrule emotions with truth -- it's the truth (eatting a dead animal that's been chopped up, broiled, etc) that brings up the emotions. Ignoring the truth (this is just like any other food, who cares where it came from?) is what allows some of us to ignore the uncomfortable and squeemish feelings. But I'm not so sure such distancing is always a good idea. Some people may be able to accept that they're eatting flesh and not have a problem. Others might have a much harder time, or even not be able to at all. But I think it's important to not run from the facts once you know them -- embrace them, and then decide. posted by: Chuck (reply) post date: 01.10.05 (3:51 pm) Reply to: Aaron So, basically, you're saying you think it's wrong to eat meat? If so, I'd like to hear the "truth" of why you would think that, and would appreciate it if you'd stop using double talk. Because the truth is that God has provided animals for us to eat and survive. That's a way of honoring wildlife, not harming it. The truth is that if we don't hunt and eat animals, they'll die from our cars or from overpopulation and lay there and rot because there's no one to eat them and honor their death (discounting the other wild animals that will eat some). That sounds like a huge waste to me. The truth is that there is nothing shameful about killing an animal to use it for life sustenance. That's called the food chain. You think a wolf wonders if its wrong for him to kill and eat a deer? The truth is that everything in our universe--from the natural food chain to God's plan for us to not being wasteful to not endangering people's lives when certain animals multiply without a predator--points to eating meat as an honorable, desirable practice. So I challenge you to seriously review where you get your truth from. And next time, let's hear some facts. posted by: Aaron (reply) post date: 01.28.05 (7:42 pm) Reply to: Chuck Yo. I didn't see this post until coming back to California, and I figured our conversation at Friday's about meat-eatting had settled the issue. However, I have no trouble attempting to clarify my point. The post I made here wasn't exactly crystal clear, but I was never saying that it's wrong to eat meat (I don't think that it is). Let me see if I can clarify. You were comparing being squeaming about eatting meat to being scared of the dark -- both natural emotional responses which can be overruled by facing the facts (there is nothing in the dark that will hurt you, there is nothing wrong with eatting meat). I was mostly objecting to the analogy and line of reasoning more than to the specific point that you made. I think the difference between being scared of the dark and being squeamish about eating meat is that while being scared of the dark comes from not knowing what's in the dark, being squeamish about meat is a result of knowing where meat comes from. Most people wouldn't think twice about eatting a chicken nugget -- unless they found out (hypothetically speaking) that it was made with unspeakable parts of a chicken pureed in a blender. In this case it's knowledge instead of lack of knowledge (as in being scared of the dark) that creates the adverse emotions. I hope that makes sense. I don't believe that eatting meat is wrong, nor do a believe hunting is wrong. Both are natural and rather clearly allowed by the Bible. "The truth is that if we don't hunt and eat animals, they'll die from our cars or from overpopulation and lay there and rot because there's no one to eat them and honor their death (discounting the other wild animals that will eat some)." I sort of like the idea of honoring an animal's death by giving its life purpose. However, today most meat doesn't come from hunting, it comes from animals which are bred to be slaughtered. The meat we buy at the deli and eat at resturants comes from very controlled environments, not the wild. I'm not exactly arguing with you, I just don't feel like the example you gave here fits in with what I know (or think I know) about the world. I like meat. I LOVE eatting hamburgers. But I am opposed to consuming too much meat, especially beef, because I feel it is a wasteful use of our resources in a world full of hungry people. Take this for example: "Feeding grain to livestock is an extremely wasteful method of producing protein. Feedlot cattle require nine pounds of feed to make one pound of gain. Only 11 percent of the feed goes to produce the beef itself. The rest is burned off as energy in the conversion process, used to maintain normal body functions, absorbed into parts of the cattle that are not eaten -- such as hair or bones -- or excreted." (from http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html#5) That means the resources used to produce my hamburger could have fed nine people on a diet of soybeans. I'm not a radical about this sort of stuff. When I was in Spain I ate whatever was served to me, animal vegetable or mineral because I didn't want to cause a fuss or insult my Senora. But now that I'm back in the U.S. and on my own, I try to limit my beef consumption. It's a personal thing and it makes sense to me. I hope I have explained myself well. Let me know if you have any further questions or points of discussion. posted by: trickangle (reply) post date: 01.28.05 (10:03 pm) Reply to: Aaron First of all, the Friday's discussion did for the most part clarify things. Second, I understand now what your principles are on this matter and I respect them. I even admire them in some ways. Thirdly, to get to your comment: I believe the nature of my discussion with Erin was about the consumption of meat in direct regards to hunting, so while I see what you're saying about processed meat being undesirable, I'm not sure how that relates to MY original argument, which you seemed to be refuting when you first replied to it. My argument dealt only with the responsible use of hunting, etc. Yes, I was saying that eating meat as a whole is ok, but the main point was in regards to mankind's right to hunt and kill to survive. Arguing the ethics of HOW to hunt and kill is a completely different discussion altogether. Fourthly, as follows: "Most people wouldn't think twice about eatting a chicken nugget -- unless they found out (hypothetically speaking) that it was made with unspeakable parts of a chicken pureed in a blender." Now I can't disagree with that (this sounds eerily similar to the hot dog argument (You'd never eat a hot dog if you saw how they make it)). I don't disagree with this. In fact, I've even made this same argument to people in the past. Your point in bringing it up, however, is to argue that my analogy was flawed (a rather minute thing, anyway, as even if it is wrong my core concept is correct). But regardless of that, I still would say that my analogy was perfectly fine. (Yes, I did think of it after 2 seconds of thought, so I'm not saying I couldn't have come up with a better analogy.) Here's your argument: "I think the difference between being scared of the dark and being squeamish about eating meat is that while being scared of the dark comes from not knowing what's in the dark, being squeamish about meat is a result of knowing where meat comes from." First of all, you're splitting hairs. The two analogies still compare even if you're right (because both are cases of overruling emotion based on fact). This is the very reason I assumed you disagreed with my core argument about the morality of eating meat, because it didn't (and still doesn't completely) make sense that you would dispute my analogy without disputing the reason behind my analogy. Even beyond this, however, your argument in no better than semantics. How you define your terms decides whether the analogy works, and your definitions are not necessarily the only ones or even the best ones. "I think the difference between being scared of the dark and being squeamish about eating meat is that while being scared of the dark comes from not knowing what's in the dark, being squeamish about meat is a result of knowing where meat comes from. " Maybe. But couldn't I also argue that the reason for being afraid of the meat is because you don't know where it comes from? In the case of the chicken nugget, isn't the person as much scared because they DON'T KNOW what's in it as that they DO KNOW there's something bad in it? It's the same way with the dark. Yes, if I am scared of the dark, on one side it is because I DON'T KNOW what's in the dark. But on the other hand, I'm also scared because I DO KNOW that bad things like to hide in the dark. Thus, both are based upon combinations of what you do and don't know. To take this further, say you are extremely educated about meat processing and the only reason you get squeamish is because you know exactly what is in it, and there is no area of fear of the unknown (and remember this was not the example I meant with my analogy anyway, since I was referring to average people with only average knowledge). You might say that shows that being squeamish about meat is different from being scared of the dark. In reality, though, if someone equally intelligent were sacred of the dark, the situation would still be parallel. Likely that person would have read up on all there is to know about the dark. That person would be knowledgeable about every threat that could potentially exist in the dark. In one sense, then, that person's fear would be rational (based on research and statistic)--just as rational (in that sense) as the squeamish meat expert. Thus, the argument you are making only works if you compare unequals--if, say, you compare a frightened kid with an informed adult. in that case, yes, you're right, the one is irrational and the other is not. But the core of that argument is irrational, because you are comparing unparallel examples. In the end, then, we see this: Being afraid of the dark and being squeamish about eating meat are (when compared with parallels) very similar: Both are fears of a known that may exist within an unknown. The person afraid of the dark doesn't know for sure what might be in the dark, but he knows what could be there. Likewise, the person squeamish about meat doesn't know for sure (usually--see above) what is in the meat, he only knows what might be in the meat based on what he has heard. Therefore, in conclusion, I stand by my analogy and still believe it to be perfectly adequate for my uses. Does that mean I couldn't have found a better one? No. With much thought, I probably could. posted by: Aaron (reply) post date: 01.28.05 (11:21 pm) Reply to: trickangle Yo. I agree that our different interpretations of your analogy are based more or less in symantics. Instead of splitting further hairs, I'll just try to explain where I was coming from when I objected to the analogy. The main idea in your analogy that I was trying to refute was the idea that being squeamish about meat is an emotional response that one should work on overruling. This wasn't inherent in that particular analogy, but it seemed to be the point you were using to make it. I think emotions (including fear and repulsion) can help us form decisions when they are based on knowledge. Assuming a child lives in a secure house with caring parents, his or her fear of the dark is irrational and can be abandoned. Squeamishness over how hot dogs or chicken nuggets or what have you, however, is not based on fantasy, but fact. In order to function normally one may have to wrestle with or even surpress this squeamishness (if one works at a meat processing plant, for example), but that emotion itself if part of what makes us human beings, and shouldn't be easily dismissed like our hypothetical child's fear of the dark. A solitary soul in a dark alley in a forigen city would be stupid to completely dismiss his or her fear of the dark in that situation. Hopefully that clarifies what I was getting at. I'm not sure that it is in disagreement with anything you were saying. I must say that I did not think that your argument had anything really to do with hunting, just with eatting meat (reading over the discussion again, I don't get a different impression). In terms of what you said about hunting I think only the most radical or reactionary animal rights activist would argue that hunting in all cases (especially when care for the animal is shown and fair methods are used) is wrong. This may be the longest discussion ever based around an analogy that was formed in two seconds! ;) posted by: trickangle (reply) post date: 01.29.05 (2:06 am) Reply to: Aaron Regardless of whether my original post had to do with hunting, the more important thing is I was arguing why it is ok in general for humans to kill and eat meat. I was not arguing HOW to do that. Yes, there are good ways and bad ways to treat the animals we eat. If you want to argue that, be my guest. :) I never shy away from a good debate. However, it isn't fair to argue against my statement by addressing something I didn't address. Secondly, your last statements confuse me a bit. In one spot, you say that our emotions about meat are valid and not to be dismissed as easily as a child's fear of the dark. Then in the next paragraph you say it is stupid to not dismiss fear of the dark in certain situations. Perhaps the problem is with my priginal post (which I formed in 2 seconds). In re-reading it, it sounds like I did err by comparing a kid's fear of the dark with an adult's squeamishness of meat (per my last comment). So I myself was comparing unparallel situations. Saying that, I still find your argument to be based on semantics. "In order to function normally one may have to wrestle with or even surpress this squeamishness (if one works at a meat processing plant, for example)." But how is that different from a fear of the dark? A police officer, for example, who works a dark area of town with a history of violent crime against cops may have very legitimate reason to be afraid of the dark. But forget the stupid analogy. That's not the point. The point is, are the emotions different? "I think emotions (including fear and repulsion) can help us form decisions when they are based on knowledge. Assuming a child lives in a secure house with caring parents, his or her fear of the dark is irrational and can be abandoned." But I think a squeamishness about eating meat can be just as irrational, especially if it leads to an actual fear of eating meat for feeling bad about it. Once again, we are arguing different concepts now than I was arguing in my original post. Let's go back to that. I was arguing that feeling bad about eating meat because it comes from an animal is irrational. I WAS NOT arguing that it is irrational to feel uncomfortable about eating meat that comes from a nasty process, such as hot dogs. Erin had said, "when I link the food I'm eatting to an animal, I can lose my appetite." I think that's irrational--as irrational as the child who won't look under the bed for fear of the boogeyman. Eating meat--IN GENERAL--is a very good, healthy thing. There are plenty of arguments to support this. So if someone feels bad about eating meat, just because they think it was once alive (which seems to be the case for Erin; correct me if I'm wrong), I would call that irrational. A fear is irrational when it is not based on a logical danger. There is no logical harm that comes from eating a hamburger, either to us or the animal that went into the hamburger. Now, in the case you've been talking about, there very well could be a rational danger. That wasn't what I was talking about in my initial post, but I'll address it anyway. Such a fear may be justified, but only if used in a constructive manner. If your concern about processed meat leads you to take precautions about eating only meat not processed in that way--or even to fight for changes in the way meat is processed--that's great. If, however, it leads you to irratioanlly start to never eat certain things, that could be a problem. I know hot dogs are nasty in theory, but I don't let that theory control me in regards to eating hot dogs. I'll still enjoy one now and again. It sounds like you are the same way, because when you were overseas you ate whatever was given you because it would cause more problems to not do so. That's the essence of rationality--weighing the merits of one choice against another. So it sounds like you are very rational in that regard. "In order to function normally one may have to wrestle with or even surpress this squeamishness (if one works at a meat processing plant, for example), but that emotion itself if part of what makes us human beings, and shouldn't be easily dismissed like our hypothetical child's fear of the dark." Why is squeamishness of meat intrinsic to who we are as human beings, but being afraid of the dark is irrational child's folly? It seems like you have a bias coming through here--a concept of what is "childish" and what is "dignified" (substitute whatever other words you want, that's not the point). It seems to me that if anything, fear of the dark is more natural to us as human beings, because we experience it so naturally, even as a young child. It seems most people who have a serious problem with eating meat are adults who read something about the meat industry. How many kids naturally refuse food for ethical reasons? If there is a difference between the two, it is that as adults, there probably is better reason to not want to eat processed meat than there is for us to be afraid of a dark room. However, your point seems to be that everybody should feel squeamish about what they eat--that it's the "natural" and "dignified" response. I disagree. I respect your convictions on the matter, but it won't bother me to eat my next hamburger. Even if I were to agree with your ethical/political stance, I would find it childish to FEEL squeamish about eating meat. You see, this comes back to my initial argument: FEELING bad is an emotional response; THINKING bad is an intellectual response. I can decide to not eat a hamburger because of my beliefs without feeling emotionally repulsed by that hamburger. I stand by my argument: Emotional repulsion at the thought of eating meat is just as irrational as fear of the dark. That said, I still don't understand how you thought all these arguments about processed meat related to my initial comment to Erin. She was clearly talking about an emotional response to eating meat in general, probably out of a misplaced sense of feeling sorry for the animal having to be killed. You never even addressed that point. Would you say it's just as elevated a response to feel bad about having to kill in order to survive? That was the concept that was behind my first comment on this topic. posted by: Aro (reply) post date: 02.04.05 (9:46 am) Reply to: trickangle I'd like to bring some closure to this discussion, so I'm just going to address a few of your points and state what I believe about the subject -- not as a matter of debate, just for clarity. "She was clearly talking about an emotional response to eating meat in general, probably out of a misplaced sense of feeling sorry for the animal having to be killed. You never even addressed that point. Would you say it's just as elevated a response to feel bad about having to kill in order to survive? That was the concept that was behind my first comment on this topic." I didn't address this because I didn't think it's what Erin was talking about, and as a result didn't think it was what you were responding to. From what I could tell, Erin's response to eatting meat didn't come from "feeling sorry for the animal" as much as it comes from being grossed out by seeing guts and raw flesh for what it is. For example, I saw pig snouts wrapped in celophane in the freezer section of Food 4 Less last week and was grossed out -- it wasn't that I felt sorry that the pig lost its nose, just that I would feel very uncomfortable about eatting something that so closely resembles a face. I'm not sure where this reaction comes from or whether or not it's "mature," but it's what I feel, and is not an emotion I can imagine overriding. That's it. Here's what I think about eatting and meat: -there's nothing wrong with hunting for your own food. -there's nothing wrong with raising animals for food, as long as you are using your resources fairly and wisely (there IS something wrong with eatting rainforest beef, for example). -we should carefully consider and give thanks for everything that we eat (which is harder nowadays when it's all processed and prepackaged). -don't eat people. This ended up being longer than I wanted it to be. sorry! posted by: trickangle (reply) post date: 02.04.05 (11:48 am) Reply to: Aro You're splitting hairs, friend. For the sake of closure, I'll let this go, but I could and would argue this to the death (figuratively speaking). To close: 1) You still didn't address my actual original point; even if Erin meant she was grossed out by the guts, that isn't what you addressed either. You addressed the morality of eating processed meat. 2) If you basically agreed with me the whole time, why did you call me out so strongly and in a sense come between a discussion between Erin and I? I didn't appreciate it then and I still don't. There. For me, that's short. posted by: trickangle (reply) post date: 02.04.05 (11:53 am) Reply to: Aro I need to rephrase point 2. Forget what I said about coming between me and Erin. That's stupid. What I want to know is why you took such strong opposition to me in the beginning when now you are basically saying you agrees with me. Were you just messing with me? I mean, what the f***, dude? Erin had made a comment AGREEING with my previous point and elaborating on it. I made a point back AGREEING with her and offering some additional off-the-cuff advice. Next thing I know you and I are in the middle of . . . this! I just don't understand your intentions. You've been coming across the whole time like you were/are somehow defending Erin, yet she never disagreed with me! What gives? posted by: Aaron (reply) post date: 02.04.05 (1:05 pm) Reply to: trickangle I thought I had made this clear earlier: I was taking your conversation with Erin for something it wasn't. I took your comments about "over-coming emotions" as having to deal with processed food and mashing up animals into something unrecognizable, as I thought that's what Erin had been talking about. I understand now that you were talking mostly about over-coming feeling bad or guilty for the animal that was killed. I never intended to "call you out" and was mostly reacting to the idea that emotions need to be "overcome" when I believe that emotions are an important part of the decision process. Which I think you'd agree with me on. I didn't intend to come out strongly bashing meat, I was just trying to give my thoughts on the issue, which I just sort of typed out. Other than that, the rest of the conversation came from me trying to explain myself after you complained that I wasn't answering "your challenges." I never felt that we disagreed all that much on this issue, but I was willing to give discussion a shot. I never had a lot of attatchment to this whole thing to begin with. posted by: trickangle (reply) post date: 02.04.05 (6:16 pm) Reply to: Aaron Ok, that makes sense. I still don't quite understand why you feel my analogy was so important. Like, I understand now (I think) where we agree and disagree, but when you first replied to me, I couldn't imagine you arguing my analogy without meaning to argue the point behind my analogy. Does that make sense? I hope so. Ity just didn't seem that you would bother do argue with something if you agreed with the underlying concept. "I never intended to "call you out" and was mostly reacting to the idea that emotions need to be "overcome" when I believe that emotions are an important part of the decision process. Which I think you'd agree with me on." I'm not sure what you mean I'd agree with you on. I still don't agree with your arguments about certain emotions being more "natural" than others. But I'm not sure if it matters if we disagree on that, if we agree on the underlying concept. So again, that can be confusing. You're right that I re-initiated this discussion after a long break from it, but that was because it confused me where you were coming from, which frustrated me. I guess this is all minor detail, though, huh? It makes sense to me now where you were coming from regarding Erin's comment (though if she meant what she said the way you say she did, that wasn't made clear in her words, at least not on here. Perhaps she said something to you privately about her intentions that I didn't have access to; if so, I could understand a little better why there seemed to be such a gap between what she and I said and what you said). |
|
Today was 'Kielabasa Bonding Day' in my house. It is an annual thing that was only started a few years ago, but continues a tradition started decades, if not generations back in my family. Except that they made it more than once a year, I believe. I was slow to get out of bed this morning, so I was not part of cutting or mixing the ingredients up- I've only helped put it in the casing and clean up afterwards. My part in it took about an hour plus. I do not want to eat meat for a while. I already have a hard time swallowing it sometimes, choosing peanut butter and nuts over animals, but now it'll be even longer before I can disconnect enough to eat meat again. There's something about raw meat, a little fat, along w/ a bunch of spices and onions, getting pushed into pig intestines that does that for me. Gross. But I have to admit that kielabasa can be quite tasty. It's a Ukrainian meat (hurray about the recent election! I read that supporters placed pumpkins in the street