They go on, however, to note that it probably won't *ever* be practical, so it's all good.

Besides, what's great about hunting? What's wrong with vegetarianism? What's wrong with a political candidate being honest?

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." --Some guy that knew some stuff (Albert Einstein)

I guess I read hir as wishing for that end not working (legislating)for it. Better be careful about acknowleging historical vegetarians, as someone may bring up the evil one. ;) Nothing wrong with it but I do like my bbq.

"the evil one" - Please clarify? Hitler?

Yep, just being cute. I don't see a corelation.

Yeah. Well, Jenni (jennofay on here) is "veegatarian" - she's mostly vegan, but every once in a while, she eats some cheese or something. Never meat though. And she's just about the most darling person you'd ever meAt (har har). Moby is also vegan. So those weird veggies got something going for them :) I definitely enjoy my BBQ & meat though - I had a damn 20oz steak Friday night and DAMN was it good.

"Note: there is no evidence that Einstein practised vegetarianism despite apparently supporting the idea." History of Vegetarianism, International Vegetarian Union.

The issue for me isn't whether Starchild thinks legal enforcement of that kind of belief is or ever will be practical. The issue is that sie thinks it would be OK to do so, especially considering sie bills hirself as libertarian.

I *do* appreciate the honesty, because it enables my to cull hir directly from the list of people I could support for political office.
Hypothetical analogy: "I think it would be ethically OK to blow you away with a bazooka, but it's impractical because the cops would arrest me".

I find your analogy a bit flawed. While there is some similarity between it and what she (it is a she, right? What's with the "sie" and "hirself" stuff? Am I retarded or did I miss something?) is supporting. I myself am at a loss to come up with a better one, but I think that they differ fundamentally in the sense that while she idealistically wants to stop hunting because she finds it cruel to animals, your analogy brings in the destruction or death of another. In other words, if she were saying "We should kill meat eaters, but this is obviously not practical", I feel your analogy would be more suiting. Alas, she is not, and I'd ask you to show how the banishment of hunting would result in the physical harm of people (provided, of course, that we all switched to a vegetarian diet and maintained proper intake levels of minerals and vitamins with dietery supplements).

I guess what I'm saying is that she has a noble goal, realizes that it's not going to happen any time soon and therefore isn't pressing it. She also makes good (poor?) use of her First Amendment right to free speech. At least her stance isn't something like "Well, I think we should kill all the Jews, but I realize this is impractical at present"...

I meant to respond to this in the first one but forgot, so I'll do it here.

I don't really see (from what you've posted) how you can draw the conclusion that she "thinks it would be OK to do so". Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with Starchild, but it seems to me that what she's saying is "Look, I'm vegetarian, and I don't support the killing of animals. However, I know that I can't stop this right now, and even if I could, it would have serious repercussions on the economy and whatnot. So, while I support gun owners' rights for a number of reasons, hunting isn't one of them. Just wanted to clarify." Obviously, that's just my take. It seems to parallel what I would say, if I ran for office (in 2016, BTW), about abortion. "Look, I appreciate life, and I don't think I could ever have one of my children aborted. However, I know that I can't stop this and that it's not right for me to make that kind of decision. So while I don't support abortion, I won't do anything to stop it. Just wanted to clarify." To me, honestly, it seems as though she's taking the wellbeing of the public into her stance, and that's infinitely valuable to have in a representative.

Well, in an extended correspondance with Starchild, I'm *not* hearing any cognicence that "it's not right for me to make that kind of decision", and that's what bugs me about him. (Turns out he's a guy, so I'll drop the gender -neutral pronouns ":sie" and "hir" I'd been using.)

If he'd responded in the way you're setting forth, I'd be perfectly satisfied, but it just ain't happening. And his apparent failure to understand that this issue is not properly a subject of law is why I don't think he should be *making* law.

It *might* be a simple failure of verbal expression...but laws are verbal expressions too. Do *you* see him saying anywhere in that that the reason not to make such a law has nothing to do with the practicality or economic consequences of doing so but is rather a matter of principle?

No. But (believe it or not), I generally try and give people the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, after your conversations with him, you're in a better position to comment on his claims. In the case that you describe, I would need to abstain from endorsing him as well. Extremism, in any area, keeps people from making rational decisions. Ask tw. :)

We should probably do better than "Benefit of the doubt" in selecting elected officials.

Oh, man...there's little doubt that he's male, though...I did a web search today and came up with an on-line ad of his--the email address matches:

http://www.sf-dom.com/adhtml/mens/chrisfox.htm

Somehow I'm less concvinced that he doesn't eat meat now...:-)

I guess what I'm saying is that the argument that we're so far removed from our food is silly.

I've heard that argument a few times... and I always thought it referred more to the process of getting food (for example, meat) from live animal to dining room table.

I grew up on a farm; we raised, butchered, and ate many types of animals -- cows, pigs, chickens, rabbits -- and I firmly believe that if most people went through the entire process (or saw it happen anyway), some of them would have second thoughts about eating meat.

Like somebody said earlier, if you can't kill it and butcher it, maybe you should think twice about eating it.

Another thought that gives me pause is the very fact that a lot of our meat supply is raised on "factory" farms, where conditions for the animals really sucks as compared to the traditional image of a farm that most of us have. I understand some of the problems that factory farms are faced with; health issues with the animals, the very size of the animal population on the farm, crowding, etc... but that doesn't make it easier for me to face the fact that I'm one of the causes of the problem.

I am a meat eater; in fact, I'm on a pretty-much protein-only diet. I do love steak and chicken... but I'll probably never eat rabbit again. Something to do, I guess, with the "beauty" of a rabbit as compared to a cow (I know that's not right, but psychologically speaking it's true).

Item of unique wonder...
When helping my friend deal with her mother's estate earlier this year, we found a rabbit meat puzzle. It seems circa 1950s and is a cardboard matching game advertising a brand of frozen rabbit meat.The game must have come as part of a package (?) Each game piece has an interesting factoid about the benefits of scientifcally raised rabbit. Some are quite amazing. I'll find it in my junk....:)

I saw that warch :)

If you want me to host it for you, let me know - you can email it or whatever and I'll post it. Or give you the URL so you can post it. Whatever. :)

You saw that lame attempt?! still learning- trial and error. I dont even know if its worth the trouble to share the majesty that is...the rabbit meat puzzle.:rolleyes: