coincidence or just freak accident
December Third a movie is released called, “I am David”… The day before that point in the future, a momentous occurence will be celebrated because a little child is born and the phrase “I am David” takes on new meaning.
coincidence?… i think not… the world recognizes the beauty and harmony of my existence and decides to shout that existence upon the clouds so all of existence should know…
Back to things past…
Thanksgiving had to be one of the best days of my life. Mary attended the celebrations at my parents house. Michelle and Terry both came over from their respective corners of the world (New Mexico and California respectively). We began by catching up with each other’s past few months. I mentioned i took Nietzsche. We then retired to the den where Trey re-kindled the debate about vegetarianism. It was interesting, and i was with my back against the fence and the cigarette was gently placed in my mouth. Moments ticked as i finally heard the click of the squad’s triggers slide into place.
Who can fend their beliefs against two Staunch vegetarians. Statements were heard, statements were ignored, and statements were misinterpretted. Finally my argument was fully understood i believe, yet i’m not sure it was completly agreed with. I argued three main points.
– Pure Vegetarianism is not healthier then an omnivorous lifestyle.
– Omnivorous lifestyle is compatible with fair and moral treatment of animals.
– America needs a severe lifestyle/health change because the dominence meat plays and also the dominence junk-food plays in our diets is slowly killing us from the inside out.
The first two statements had no problem being heard, but i had difficulty expressing the second in conjunction with the first two. In fact Mary claims i never said it. Trey said i did. Obviously i should have laid out my argument in bulletin format.
Next conversational piece was less controversial. I talked about what i was learning about Nietzsche. It was great. Michelle wanted to know the information i was giving and Mary whispered in my ear at one point how sexy she thought i looked as i was discussing this. I blushed inside, but doubt i blushed outside.
Unfortunatly, later Mary and I had to leave because this was not just thanksgiving, but our last night together. I enjoyed the hell out of thanksgiving.
I saw the graduate… great movie… absoleutly a surprising movie seeing that it is so old.
I saw Baraka… interesting and beautiful movie… if not disturbing in some points.. the manufacturing of chicks… horrible… made me want to be a vegetarian and bomb the local KFC.
—–Time warp from thanksgiving to the present—–
I saw Fantastic Planet last night. Strange movie about aliens who keep humans as pets. The whole of the movie demonstrates the adaptability of humans and how we can overthrow stronger creatures because we have the ability to adapt to situations. it was nice.
November 30th, 2004 at 7:08 pm
Thank you for being so amusing.
I like how you described the metaphorical execution. It reminds me of this Borges story I had to read for Craft workshop a couple of weeks ago… Of course the movie is being released in celebration of you. Incidentally, is it supposed to be any good?
December 1st, 2004 at 3:52 pm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327919/ I Am David is adapted from Anne Holm’s internationally acclaimed novel North to Freedom. It is the story of a 12-year-old boy, David, who escapes a Communist concentration camp with little more than a compass, a sealed letter, a loaf of bread, and instructions to carry the letter to Copenhagen, Denmark. David is thrust into the free world for the first time in his young life as he travels across Europe. It is a spiritual voyage of discovery, where David slowly loses his instinctual mistrust of humanity and begins to smile, share, trust and ultimately, love. I Am David addresses the cruelties, politics, and suffering of warfare while celebrating the resilience of youth and the unbreakable spirit of a child. See? Who can’t see the similarities in both of our lives? It is obviously a biography. I wonder where they got their sources.
December 1st, 2004 at 4:07 pm
[quote:952b4a221e=”Arglor”]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327919/ I Am David is adapted from Anne Holm’s internationally acclaimed novel North to Freedom. It is the story of a 12-year-old boy, David, who escapes a Communist concentration camp with little more than a compass, a sealed letter, a loaf of bread, and instructions to carry the letter to Copenhagen, Denmark. David is thrust into the free world for the first time in his young life as he travels across Europe. It is a spiritual voyage of discovery, where David slowly loses his instinctual mistrust of humanity and begins to smile, share, trust and ultimately, love. I Am David addresses the cruelties, politics, and suffering of warfare while celebrating the resilience of youth and the unbreakable spirit of a child. See? Who can’t see the similarities in both of our lives? It is obviously a biography. I wonder where they got their sources.[/quote:952b4a221e] Obviously. Communist concentration camp = Delaine. Copenhagen, Denmark = Me. Spiritual voyage of discovery across Europe during which David slowly loses his instinctual mistrust of humanity, etc. = Our relationship. The similarities are breathtaking. 😐 <pregnant pause> *bursts out with laughter* 😆 I know, I know! I’m being perfectly ridiculous!! Delaine wasn’t [b:952b4a221e]that[/b:952b4a221e] bad. And why does everything have to be about me? It just does, okay? At least when I’m making it up!!!!
Pssst… could you maybe break off a piece of that bread, David? I’m hungry. <wanders off to find breakfast> I can’t wait to give you your Christmas present!!!!!
December 3rd, 2004 at 1:26 am
Hmm. I want to jump in late in the game, if I may. – Pure Vegetarianism is not healthier then an omnivorous lifestyle. Actually it is in many cases. Veganism is the only proven way I know of that will reverse the affects of heart disease and diabetes. The human body was not made to consume meat–look at the differences in a dog or cat and your own body. Teeth, intestine length, stomach capabilities–these all lead me to believe that humans are not biologically intended for carnage. However, socially we are, and that is why eating meat is such a natural choice for a good portion of the world’s population. – Omnivorous lifestyle is compatible with fair and moral treatment of animals. In some ways, yes. For people who try to eat well by supporting organic farms, it is compatible. However, one of the main reasons I am a vegetarian is the book Fast Food Nation. Not a book with a vegetarian argument, but one that discusses all aspects of the fast food industry, including how workers in meat packing plants are treated. You could say that some people are vegetarians not because of a moral obligation to animals, but to other humans. – America needs a severe lifestyle/health change because the dominence meat plays and also the dominence junk-food plays in our diets is slowly killing us from the inside out. Right on.
December 3rd, 2004 at 2:33 am
First off here is a link to our original argument: < http://happypoet.com/arglor/archives/000177.php?comments=7 > [quote:c3f13c73ed=”girlbean”]Hmm. I want to jump in late in the game, if I may. – Pure Vegetarianism is not healthier then an omnivorous lifestyle. Actually it is in many cases. Veganism is the only proven way I know of that will reverse the affects of heart disease and diabetes. The human body was not made to consume meat–look at the differences in a dog or cat and your own body. Teeth, intestine length, stomach capabilities–these all lead me to believe that humans are not biologically intended for carnage. However, socially we are, and that is why eating meat is such a natural choice for a good portion of the world’s population.[/quote:c3f13c73ed] hmm ok I?m breaking this up and responding in kind. First off, what are the statistics behind a vegan lifestyle actually reversing the affects of heart disease and diabetes? Just curious because I have never heard that argument and I?m curious where that comes from. My main concern is what a correlative qualities in their lifestyle that could attribute to this decrease in disease? Could it be that the people used in the study generally had less of a chance of getting heart disease and diabetes? (remember both of those diseases are genetically related, if your relatives have these diseases then you have a higher chance of getting the disease yourself.) Just thinking about it from a basic (and i mean completly basic) understanding of both diseases, i can see how one would assume that taking sugars and eating less foods innundated with fat would lead to a decrease in both of these diseases, but does that mean complete abstinance from any form of animal product? Isn’t that taking it a bit far? Shouldn’t we just decrease the intake of sugar and fatty foods? Second you argue from design. As a species we evolve constantly, and if you go to this website: http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml it has a detailed workout of how humanity’s dietary habits have evolved. The first ‘humans’ ate insects, and moved on to primarily foliage, insects, fruits, and meat. < http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#timeline%20start >. But beyond all this analysis, the argument itself doesn?t necessarily follow. Just because we appear to be designed to do something isn?t a strong enough argument that we should only do that one thing. An example, we are designed to procreate every time we have sex. Should I conclude that it would be unhealthy for me to hinder that process, i.e. abandon any form of contraceptive? Technically speaking this is the ?is-ought? fallacy noted by David Hume. Just because it is the case, does not mean that it ought to be the case. If it was the case that our bodies were designed to eat primarily vegetarian diet, that doesn?t mean the vegetarian diet is the healthiest. What if we create a pill that gives us all the vitamins we could ever need, and all the sustenance necessary by taking this one pill. Here is another hypothetical that is conceivable. What if we found an animal that worked better with our structure then plants. In fact if we lived off of this animal it is conceivable that we would live the happiest healthiest lives we have ever lived. Just because we are designed to eat plants, doesn?t mean it is better to eat the plants over this animal. You might argue that these uses of hypotheticals are irrelevant, but hypotheticals are necessary and used constantly in philosophical analysis. (See trolley problem where the use of hypotheticals get absurd) [quote:c3f13c73ed=”girlbean”]- Omnivorous lifestyle is compatible with fair and moral treatment of animals. In some ways, yes. For people who try to eat well by supporting organic farms, it is compatible. However, one of the main reasons I am a vegetarian is the book Fast Food Nation. Not a book with a vegetarian argument, but one that discusses all aspects of the fast food industry, including how workers in meat packing plants are treated. You could say that some people are vegetarians not because of a moral obligation to animals, but to other humans.[/quote:c3f13c73ed] That is definitely a good point, but the argument is best served not in becoming a vegetarian but in changing the system in which fast food operates. Yet again I reference an old argument issued in a past thread. I think the strongest argument against our current food-intake is through the suffering of the animals before their consumption. I enjoy hearing about the Native American?s tradition of respecting the animal before using the animal for its necessary uses. If our society changed our treatment of third world nations and our treatment of animals I think we could adapt to a healthy omnivorous lifestyle. In other words, your argument can be alleviated by re-organizing our corporate structures. We rape and pillage third world nations for their resources and pay them ?market value? for their goods, but low and behold the market value is based on their economy and not the economy of the nation the product is being used for. So you can get a bag of coffee beans from a South American nation for less then half a dollar, but you pay 5 dollars for a cup of coffee at Starbucks. We have a serious problem, but it won?t be alleviated by becoming vegetarians. Let us assume everyone in America becomes vegetarian, then the demand for vegetables climbs and the demand for meat drops. This creates corporations to begin using the third world nation countries with farmable land for their products. It just changes the product and not the system in which the product is bought/sold/traded etc. Of course you could make the argument that if everyone became vegetarian, then they would be more intelligent as to their products, but haven?t you ever met an ignorant vegetarian? I have. Her concern was ?not harming the pretty animals? to quote her politely. My point is humanity will not become intelligent because of a change in dietary habits. I?m belaboring the point. I just think your argument is best used as an argument against corporate responsibility to humanity as a whole, and not to support the vegetarian diet.