Disqus - Latest Comments for spgreenlaw

Re: Question of the Day

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:48:53 -0000

You know, I have never even given that I might have a most beautiful or handsome part the least bit of thought. Come to think of it, that's really pretty sad.

Hm.

Currently, I'm partial to the stretch between my wrist and my thumb.It goes concave in a really neat way. I think it looks dashing.

Re: Tool Academics and Their Plaintive Cry for Feminism (Even If They Don't Know It)

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:17:21 -0000

These are the people I went to high school with. Ugh.

And dear lord, I hate the term "conquest" in that context.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:50:39 -0000

Hawise and Graham,

What both of you said (or maybe it was just the way you said it) clicked in my head. I see that I let some comments get to me in ways I shouldn't have, and I did indeed say things that were shaming. Now, I don't think I meant it to shame, but you two are right, regardless of my intentions I have to accept the consequences of my actions.

So, to everyone, but especially JR_JR and em_in_va,

I sincerely apologize for the words I chose. They were definitely NOT conducive to the free sharing of ideas. I thank you for teaching me a lesson, and I'm sorry that it was such a hard one for me to learn. It seems I can be a bit of a loose cannon about certain things. I'll watch for that in the future, and if there's anything else that I could change for the better, please, let me know, and I'll do my best.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:38:27 -0000

Anne,

I do those things, actually. Thanks for the advice though.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:37:25 -0000

Melissa,

I guess we have different definitions of what constitutes bullying. Since this is your site, I'll accept yours while here, without arguing, and I'll try to tread more lightly about this and other topics, starting now, so that I don't cross that threshold. Apologies.

I do know that vegetarianism is a privilege and I talk about that on a regular basis. Note that I said causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. If you are in a position that demands you eat meat to survive, then it's not unnecessary, is it? I never said anything otherwise, did I? I apologize if I said otherwise, as I was definitely wrong. As far as any sort of cultural pressure, I have dealt with that, and I don't think I need to say here that there is often a great deal of societal and cultural pressure towards a lot of things that most of us at this site find wrong, and while I understand that some choices were most definitely easier for me to make because of the atmosphere and identity I grew up in and with, I do not think that just because the right choice is hard makes it okay to make the wrong one.

But I see what your saying. I know I have class (as well as other types) privilege. I try to wrestle with it everyday, especially because I espouse a very left wing politics. It's not unexamined, but I do acknowledge that I cannot always control it. And I also know that I, like anyone who has any sort of privilege, can (quite often) be very blind to it. I'll reconsider whether or not this is one of those times, though I did so before entering the discussion.

Thanks for the food (ugh, really, no pun intended) for thought.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:03:57 -0000

Shelly,

I'm really, really not bullying anyone. I was bullied constantly as a kid, to some very painful extremes, and I find it a bit offensive for you to label what I'm doing, sharing my opinion, with the same term.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:02:13 -0000

Sarah in Chicago,

First off, there was nothing in your comment that ought to be regretted. I appreciate it.

I don't think that those who continue to eat meat are doing so ought of ignorance; I apologize if I came across that way. I was certainly aware of the facts of the matter long before I stopped eating animal products.

As my uncle used to say, reality is what happens outside of our heads. No one truth? I don't even understand what that even means, but the closest I can get is that your saying that anything is ethically justifiable if it suits the person. Am I wrong?

I never said that everything is permissible in achieving my ultimate goal. Actually, my first comment in this thread basically implies the exact opposite, since it says that tactics that throw women under the truck are wrong. I do think that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. And I don't think it's wrong for me to say so, even if I do so loudly. Of course, if it is inappropriate for this forum, well, I'll stop doing it.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:39:16 -0000

Carolyn,

I am indeed a male, so no worries. And yeah, I sort of went and reduced practicing omnivore down to a shorthand, without myself even knowing! Whoops. Thanks for the catch. :)

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:35:12 -0000

ajoye,

I have mentioned several times in this thread that some people have to eat meat. I am sincerely sorry if I didn't do a good enough job and I made you feel disregarded or ignored. I will try to do a better job in the future.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:32:31 -0000

Sarah in Chicago,

There is a huge difference between being blunt about something that is undeniable and observably true, that sentient beings suffer because of our eating choices, and using thousand year old myths to promote intolerance. Surely you wouldn't disagree?

And I don't think it is alienating, at least in the long term. I, and other veg*ns I know (and this could be selection bias) were, when we were omnivores, able to ignore it for a while, sure. But eventually we had to face what we were doing and we had to change, because of how loud and persistant, and yes, blunt, animal rights activists were. Asking politely has never gotten any social movement anything.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:20:49 -0000

Melissa,

If you want to call what I said sanctimonious, than I've got to tell you, it does work. It's what made me first think about whether consuming meat was right or not. Having the results of my choices shoved into my face made me confront them. It made it impossible for me to keep ignoring them. We have a moral imperative to be honest about the truth, and not to sugar coat it.

And if you are raising animals for food, you are still causing unnecessary suffering. Because eating meat is not, for the vast majority of people, necessary.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:10:17 -0000

JR_JR,

From your previous comment and its level of pettiness, I wouldn't put it past you. But, since you're obviously being sarcastic, I hope the tastiness makes all that cruelty and environmental damage worth getting your kicks.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:09:14 -0000

em_in_va,

It's unfair for the ones who actually suffer, the non-human animals, that because of some people being total assholes about the cause, people (not just you) turn their backs on animal rights and treatment issues.

I understand that PETA sucks; I hold them partially responsible for the bad name animal rights activists get. But that doesn't mean that people who do eat meat get a free pass. The arguments against eating meat still stand, and are just as valid, no matter what sexist bullshit a certain group might be using to get them attention. So when you say you turn your back on the animal rights movement as a whole because of certain people's behavior, I can't help but find that to be a remarkably poor argument.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:56:00 -0000

JR_JR,

How fun for you. Does it make you happy that you're causing a great deal of unnecessary suffering and doing massive damage to the environment?

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:50:06 -0000

Sigh. To the people talking about wanting to eat meat to get back at PETA, the only ones you're hurting are the animals. Way to go. It's very big of you.

Re: Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women

spgreenlaw — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:49:21 -0000

I'm a pretty hardline animal rights person, and let me tell you, I fucking hate PETA and their sleazy, misogynistic tactics. I'm sorry that these assholes have taken it upon themselves to be the face of the animal rights movement. I hope you know that they don't represent all of us, or even most of us. I'm a vegan and a feminist, and there should be no dissonance between the two.

Re: Read These Now as Wisdom is a Flickering Hologram

spgreenlaw — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:15:06 -0000

"Don't lecture me on the possible fur for those cat toys. I like leather, fur, and gnaw on lamb chops. That is the way of my world and it ain't changing. Ignorance is bliss. Wisdom ain't my forté."

Okay, so I know you said not to lecture you (This comment has gotten off to a good start, hasn't it?) but I am a bit disturbed by your plea of willful ignorance and delight in the suffering of others exhibited here. Especially on a site that does such a good job of calling out people's bullshit and the weak defenses they employ. I don't think joking about the suffering of animals, human or otherwise, is something that's all that appropriate. And I definitely don't think claiming ignorance (that you apparently want to cultivate in yourself, so you can pretend to be in the clear) is a remotely acceptable excuse.

If this comment is out of line, let me know. I just thought it should be said.

Re: Question of the Day

spgreenlaw — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:55:35 -0000

The Cure. Robert Smith eats Morrissey for breakfast. Just joking, of course, I like them both. But yeah, The Cure. I would also consider the Sex Pistols or Joy Division.

Re: Vatican thrilled as Skinheads turn to Catholicism in droves

spgreenlaw — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:05:05 -0000

Tommy "Hatefuck" Timmons is just about the best name for a character that I have ever come across. You had me laughing uproariously and disturbing the neighbors at such an early hour. Well done, sir!

Re: Quote of the Day

spgreenlaw — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:20:14 -0000

Well. What a fun time they must be having in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Re: Action Item

spgreenlaw — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:50:46 -0000

LizardOC,

Hm, I might be able to swing something along the lines of what you wrote, actually. I'll think about it.

Sorry about my reaction, everyone. It was way too negative.

Re: Action Item

spgreenlaw — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:42:25 -0000

I'm sorry, but I can't ethically support a company that makes money from the inhumane raising and butchering of animals. Just like how I can't bring myself to support PETA, despite the good work they do, because of their sexist, racist ads.

Re: Quote of the Day

spgreenlaw — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:02:32 -0000

Ahaha. "THIS IS SOME BENJAMIN BUTTONS SHIT!" Why the hell did Fitzgerald never think of that line? I can no longer hold him in high esteem as the greatest American writer. That title now goes to Kanye. We have witnessed true brilliance on this day.

Re: Blog Note & QotD

spgreenlaw — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:03:16 -0000

I think David Bowie would be an awesome birthday performer. He has such fun costumes.

Re: Question of the Day

spgreenlaw — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:13:46 -0000

Milk. Everyone I've talked to who's seen it has loved it and has been deeply moved.