Mark, welcome to the list.

Mark:
>When one speaks of killing another being not out of self-defense, but for
>one's own gratification or needs, real or imagined, it would seem to me
>hypocritical to speak of doing so "mercifully."  Look up the word mercy and
>you will find definitions like kindness, compassion, etc.

Is eating according to ones biological make-up in order to survive not the
ultimate act of self-defense?

> People who talk about killing an animal with kindness or compassion are
>only trying to rationalize their actions to themselves or others.

I take it you are not speaking from experience so how can you be so certain
that these are not deeply felt notions?

>The animal, given a choice, would rather live, just as you or I would.

The animals that we kill and eat have no concept of being treated unfairly
or not given a choice/chance, neither do they understand the concept of
death or mourn over the prospect of having to finish life prematurely. Like
all creatures animals have a strong instinct for survival and should be
treated without cruelty but it ends here. Any speculations beyond that I
think are just projections; extensions and reflections of our own fears and
nightmares.

>If you are speaking about killing without inflicting suffering beyond that
>needed to kill, I wouldn't call that merciful.

Neither would I, but who is to say that the person killing the animal, his
cup is not running over with feelings of boundless mercy?

>I would say that would be the bare minimum of decency which should be
expected of a >human being.

True, but compared to how badly animals so often are treated, it is an act
of compassion that deserves a lot credit.

>Even people who go out and kill animals on their own are probably, for the
most part, >inflicting as much if not more suffering than the slaughterhouses.

I disagree.  How do you reach this conclusion?

>So I suggest that any talk of "mercy" be dispensed with in favor of facing
>what is being done, if it must be done, honestly and without self-deception.

A self-deceiving meat-eater is really a vegan at heart. The problem in
either case is that they are having problems coming to terms with being
omnivores and as a consequence both are ridden with feelings of guilt.

>It may be semantics, but then again it may not.  I just think it is
>important that we not deceive ourselves into thinking we are somehow
>performing some noble deed on the animal's behalf when we use words like
>"merciful" and "compassionate."

I do not think that anybody is claiming  that.

>If extraterrestrials visited our planet
>and began gathering up humans to kill and eat, they too might say they were
>doing so with compassion and mercy, but it would be more to assuage their
>own feelings of guilt than out of any true compassion for the humans.

I am sure ET's are capable of killing with just as much compassion and
mercy as humans. Those who are not, I agree are no better than humans who
raise and kill with cruelty and indifference or trophy hunters who hunt for
the sport of it.

>Would the families of the people that were eaten feel gratitude that their
>loved ones were killed with "mercy" and "compassion" because they weren't
>tortured?  I'm afraid I wouldn't be so charitable.

I am certain they would feel very grateful as well as overcome with grief
and a sense of loss.

>If the ETs felt true compassion for us, they wouldn't kill us.

Rather being an issue of hypocrisy is not the core of the matter that you
believe that killing and eating another creature is an act of violence in
which there is no place for compassion?

>applaud you for not using excuses like mercy and compassion for your
>decision to eat animals.  If I felt that eating animals was necessary for
>my health and well being I probably would eat them too, and hopefully I
>wouldn't engage in some hypocritical ritual like apologizing to the dead
>flesh or thanking the animal for giving up its life, as I have heard some
>people do.

Hypocrites can be found in all camps but I do not see any of the kind that
you are referring on the list just now. Do not forget that the tradition of
thanking the animal for giving its life runs deep in many aboriginal
societies where animals usually are treated with great respect and reverence.

>I don't mean to judge you or others who eat flesh as less
>compassionate, though I admit to having those feelings at times.  Maybe
>that can be a discussion for another day.

We all judge to some extent and as long as we are not in denial about it
and are able to come to terms with it like you seem to, I do not see any
harm done. Unfortunately,  many vegans seem incapable of such
introspection. Instead, as convenient smoke screens they often choose to
remain in denial of their own personal issues and seem content with
projecting their fears and prejudices into the matters and on to the people
with whom they disagree without much self-reflection.  I have found this so
prevalent that I have come to regard most vegans as unhappy neurotics
compulsively acting out displaced feelings of guilt.  I am glad when I meet
people like yourself that contradict this prejudice of mine.

Kirt:
> Or put another way: why should ETs give two hoots about our notions of
> compassion and mercy, much less desire our gratitude!? I find no examples
> of these things in nature regarding lunch.

Mark:
>Well, why should Hitler have given two hoots about the Jews?  Their bodies
>supposedly provided many useful products, though not food, as far as I
>remember, for the Nazi war machine.  I guess we could just say that's the
>way it is, let's just accept it and not whine about it.

I do not understand how you can compare the perverted "needs" of the nazis
with the healthy nutritional needs of an omnivore.

>In a larger sense,
>I agree with that.  The way to true Freedom lies in facing the truth about
>What Is and not wishing things were different.  But on the scale of my
>individual human-ness, I think it is perfectly natural to expect others, at
>least intelligent beings, to exhibit some kind of kindness and compassion.
>And if they argue that they are merciful and kind and compassionate because
>they are not torturing us, I would argue that a more appropriate word would
>be "non-sadistic."

"Non-sadistic" does not even come close to capturing the deep respect and
connection that many people feel about hunting and raising animals, and I
suspect that a vegan probably knows as little about compassion towards
animals as a meat-eater knows about vegan cruelty to plants. ;-)

>Of course it would make a difference to me.  I would rather die suddenly
>than in agony. And like you, I would fight back. But let's not give my
>killers the honor of using words like "kind, merciful and compassionate" in
>describing their actions.  How about "hungry"?

Is a bird that eats a worm a killer? How about a chimp who eats termites?
If not, why would a human eating a rabbit be one?  Killing for food can be
done with the outmost respect and caring for the animal which is not to say
that the motive for the act is one of compassion or that the act itself is
an expression of love for the animal. The motive is of course hunger.

>For the record (again), I am not saying meat eaters are less compassionate
>than plant eaters.

What you do seem to be saying is that the compassion that meat-eaters feel
for animals is less real than that of plant-eaters.  I am reading you
correctly?

>I am simply saying that killing animals for food "mercifully" is a
contradiction in >terms.

I am sure many meat-eaters would share your opinion. Still, I cannot help
but suspect that your vegan belief that killing animals for foods is
somehow "bad" maybe is skewing your perspective a bit. Your comparisons to
ET's and nazis and making statements like "even people who go out and kill
animals on their own are probably, for the most part, inflicting as much if
not more suffering than the slaughterhouses" make it seem quite probable.

> I can understand how some might
>view this as being critical of their diet or their overall compassion, but
>really I am just saying: face what you are doing without euphemisms and
>rationalizations designed to cover up your guilt feelings.  Maybe you will
>feel even more liberated and devour even more animals, or maybe you will
>decide that it doesn't feel right.  Either way, you are facing the
>unalloyed truth, and that can only be beneficial.

It is funny but those words could have been mine addressing vegans. Only
vegans who accept that humans are basically omnivorous creatures by nature
would be exempt.

>But you had some dishonest criticisms, too.  I never said non-vegans were
>"mean," nor did I dismiss them as "killers" (I was referring to
>cannibalistic ETs trying to kill me)

If your example with the ET's has no relevance to anybody than yourself, I
do not get your point.

>It is important, though, to keep the discussion friendly and not resort to
>sarcasm and personal attacks, which will immediately shift us from
>the learning mode to the defend and attack mode.

And you have done an excellent job at that. I have enjoyed very much
following your thoughts in this thread.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]