Hooray for Paul

[Guest guest]

Bravo, and thanks for doing what I could not: bothering. lol

 

On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 09:39 AM,

wrote:

 

> Message: 8

> Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:36:33 -0000

> " dave " <dave4sale

> Re: GMO etc.

>

> Well, just because the pope and president side with a position

> called " pro-life " does not in fact mean that they have a strong value

> for all life or even all human life. (i.e. death penalty, Iraqui

> civilians, etc.) " Pro-life " is a political term- liberals often

> refer to it as " anti-choice " just like " pro-choice " is referred to

> as " anti-life " by conservatives. The reasons corporations and the

> likes of Pres Bush may not be interrested in feeding the hungry of

> other nations (or his own for that matter) is racism. There still

> exists a strong sentiment in many americans that american lives

> matter more. Also, pro-life positions may be advocated by wealthy

> individuals who wish to ensure a large pool of cheap labor, not

> necessarily out of any concern for the unborn fetus. (this is not to

> say that most pro-lifers do not have a genuine concern for the

> fetus).

>

> I will agree with you that vegetarian food can be more expensive in

> the inner cities. I think this a very deliberate act by the stores

> to keep the poor living off of unhealthy foods. Whether its motivated

> by racism, classism, or the store stereotyping it's customers

> (i.e. " Poor people don't like health food " ). I will also agree with

> you that gm food is better than none at all. I don't think anyone

> here is arguing that no one should buy this, but that we should at

> least have a choice (i.e food should be labeled as gmo).

>

> And I feel that yes, if someone is starving and animal products are

> all they can get then eating them is perfectly justified. Just like

> it is justified for a lion to eat a zebra; for biological reasons,

> they have no choice.

>

> The thing is the President is holding out on the possibility of

> providing healthy food to all americans. first, the only reason meat

> and dairy are so cheap is because of corporate welfare- tax dollars.

> And farmers are actually paid NOT to grow more soybeans. Another

> problem being that the grains and wheat grown for livestock could be

> fed to humans if we stopped raising animals for food. Also, the

> president, ceos, etc. have enough money that they could buy food for

> every poor person and still live a very high quality of life.

>

> You also mentioned that can't there be cans to put money in at health

> food stores. I believe there are. there are also places to put food

> for the poor in at whole foods market. the problem is that, all

> people typically put in these is there pocket change. Of course most

> middle class people do lead a very luxurious life with lots of

> computers, tvs, stereos, etc. that we don't really need, but have

> been convinced by ads that we do. But another problem with charity is

> that, even if it actually ends up in the hands of the poor (which i

> understand it frequently does not), it is a temporary / quick fix

> solution to a problem that requires structural change. In order to

> eliminate poverty, we need redistribution of wealth (i.e. tax the

> rich more and the poor less) and laws passed (i.e. much higher

> minimum wage, price regulations, medicare, etc.)

>

> Sorry if I totally missed the point of your post. I don't think

> anyone here would claim that animals have more of a right to life

> than the poor. Personally, I like to view humans and animals as

> equals. However, because of the great destruction my fellow humans

> inflict on the environment, I feel we need to take some serious steps

> toward decreasing the human population. Humanely of course, through

> increased birth control, education, and " anti-natal " government

> policies.

>

>

>

" There is nothing sweeter than a conquered repugnance. "

--The Marquis de Sade