h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>it was alluding to previous discussions where you put forward your Marxist arguments, because what was most needed was putting food on the table.

OK - that's a slightly separate point. However...even accepting that 'Man can not live on bread alone', I would argue that empowering people to be able to supply their own bread is a necessary prerequisite for their cultural fulfillment. The freedom to paint dot pictures is no kind of freedom at all, unless you have control over whether they need to be sold to tourists to earn a crust.

You'd like Subcommandante Marcos on this kind of thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcomandante_Marcos

And it's worth pointing out that Marx and Engels were Romantics in the tradition of Schiller.

>isn't it you who always advocates that we should try to look at other cultures from *their* point of view?<

Yes up to a point. But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to argue against certain practices if they cause 'suffering' eg female circumcison, labelling certain children as 'witches' and Halal in the context of mass industrial slaughter. Not that I consider Halal to be in the same league as the 2 former examples, but in relation to that *particular discussion* I argued against it.

I don't think the question of what other cultures do or don't is black and white. And I can't really know how absolutely essential certain practices are to peoples' lives, eg I don't know how absolutely essential it is for some cultures to label homosexuality as a sin against God; But I'll continue to argue how I see the facts on this thread, and not worry about eg attracting fellow travellers. I mean I'm no Christopher Hitchens, who is person in the public eye, who has written books and appears on the media, I'm just someone discussing issues with others on an internet message board.

>>Not that I consider Halal to be in the same league as the 2 former examples

Which was kinda my point. Yes - cirtainly things like genital mutilation, homophobia, children's women's rights touch on Universal Human Rights. (oops - Humanism. ). Halal - a mere detail. Same kind of slaughter that *everyone* was doing until about thirty years ago. That's the context of the debate. So is the animosity that's regularly stirred up against Muslims.

I've posted this on the "news story..." thread but in light of recent discussions I thought I'd post it here too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/13/ghent-belgium-vegetarian-day

Gent (Belgium) goes veggie one day a week. Schools and government buildings initially but they are thinking of rolling it out so that all restaurants have to comply as well - twill be interesting to see how my fav restaurant over there (Amadeus) copes if they do, seeing as they mostly serve steak and mixed grill - I believe they do have a veggie option but it's prob'ly only there for poor veggies who get dragged along by inconsiderate carnivores - if you're goin to Amadeus chances are you're intending to eat half a cow.

But it also caught my eye as I've been considering something similar myself, just to cut back on the amount of meat I eat. I agree with Ed that some of us do eat far too much of it in the West - it seems to be buggering up the environment, the agriculture sector, our health....
One veggie day a week could be a worthwhile experiment for more towns to take on - even if it *is* a bit nanny-state.

On Subcomandante Marcos...

Gotta love anyone who travels with a deformed chicken called 'el Pingüino'.


Or who'll say to ETA:

'I shit on revolutionary vanguards.'

Yes, pp - I heard about Gent also.

Going without meat isn't necessarily about self-denial, btw. I can assure you that I am the best cook you will ever come across (well...unless you come across Heston Blumenthal, maybe). Meat eaters don't even notice that I'm not giving them meat! And that's how it should be.

Hi Ed,

>Same kind of slaughter that *everyone* was doing until about thirty years ago

Is this really a valid line of argument? Should we shrug our shoulders at aparetheit on the grounds that it's what *everyone* in South Africa was doing until the 1990s? Or homophobia on similar grounds? Would we deny the latest in medical technology to children(*) because it's new and expensive? If someone needs chemotherapy, should we give them the latest, side-effect-free(**) drugs, or the old painful ones from the 1990s?

Or are we morally beholden to use the best means at our disposal to reduce suffering, irrespective of what may have been the norm 30 years - or 30 minutes - ago?

Gif

(*) Yes, I'm being emotive
(**)And entirely hypothetical

>>Is this really a valid line of argument?

Well it depends.

If one genuinely holds that halal slaughter is 'barbaric', one might feel perfectly justified in mounting a campaign which would entail collateral damage for Muslims.

If one takes a step back and thinks of the history - and takes note of the fact that halal chicken slaughter is *less* barbaric than non-halal industrialised slaughter...and that within Europe, halal slaughter comprises a small part of a greater whole...and there's far more net cruelty associated with general farming methods and conventiuoanal slaughter...etc. etc.....then these might give a little perspective on whether it's worth bolstering Fellow Travellers with their own agendas wholly unrelated to one's own.

It all depends on how much of a moral absolutist is and how high one's horse. But if someone genuinely is a moral absolutist...I'd really expect them to hold to their principles and campaign against *all* slaughter. I'll at least listen to - if not necessarily throw my weight behind - those people. Similarly...I'd not (hypothetically) listen to an old-style US segregationist on Apartheid.

>So is the animosity that's regularly stirred up against Muslims.<

There's been lots of animosity directed at Christians here on this thread over the years. Why not treat Muslim irrationalities equally if they are based on the literal concept of a big G. I certainly don't intend to hold back if I think that do things which are just based on the literal belief in an overseeing non material entity.

Fundamentally for me its about the literalism, the absolute assertion of the existance of Allah.

***
>The freedom to paint dot pictures is no kind of freedom at all, unless you have control over whether they need to be sold to tourists to earn a crust.<


I have said repeatedly earlier, dot paintings are maps which indicate where food is to be found, be it 'women's business' which is about gathering, or 'men's business' which is mainly about hunting. And the hard reality on the ground is that just getting money from selling paintings to tourists to put food on the table, doesn't seem to be helping much when you see so many aboriginals wandering around in an alcoholic haze because *all* cultural meaning has been stripped from them in terms of the reason that these paintings have been made for thousands of years.

The term 'earning a crust' means cluck all to someone from this tradition.

Heston Blumenthal's cooking has been lauded twice since I returned from a brief visit to the UK. I managed to resist commenting on the first mention, but now feel bound - perhaps by my fascination with coincidence - to tell you that I was in Bray, just the other day, enjoying some excellent 'pub grub' at the Hinds Head.

And I should add that I think it has been so traumatic because this absolute *fundamental* to their way of life has been forcibly taken from them, a 60,000 year old culture, in 150 years.

It's not a question of European's arriving and things slowly changing through discussion and communication, it's about enforced, often violent actions of all kinds, to wipe out their way of life overnight.

Hi Ed,

>If one takes a step back and thinks of the history

Indeed. I'm not questioning that there are valid points to be made either way, not leastly the cruelty of current de facto methods; I am questioning whether it's relevant that non-Halal methods are so recent.

Incidentally, does anyone know whether Halal butchers are any more strict in their following of the laws than non-Halal butchers?

Gif

>>There's been lots of animosity directed at Christians here on this thread over the years.

Indeed. But beyond the navel-gazing intellectualising of teh interwebs, there's a world where anti-Muslim sentiment is a convenient cover for racism. In this world, the animosity has more serious consequences than rude postings.


On Aboriginal alcoholism:

I agree that their crusts aren't their immediate needs, which are met by welfare. In fact - some, unfortunately, trade their welfare coupons for alcohol. But it's a problem that's easily understood as one of 'Anomie'. Because they lack the power of self determination, they turn to self-destructive means of escape. Valueing their culture is, of course, neccessary, as are things like treatment for addiction - but these won't address the root cause. Empower people politically and economically, and they'll be in a position to look after *their own* culture.

>>it's about enforced, often violent actions of all kinds, to wipe out their way of life overnight.


Indeed. *But*...it wasn't the 'way of life' that the settlers aimed to take away. Aboriginal culture was unimportant to them. More fundamentally, they took away their land...and with it the means of economic self-determination. As a result, the culture was destroyed.

Gif:

Points taken.

But my point is that on the cruelty side of the argument, there's room for uncertainty and debate. Wheras on the misuse of the issue to stir up animosity and violence...here, I'm afraid, we have more certainty. That's the equation.

My view on a personal experience level, I live in an incredibly multi cultural area, is that the people I speak to on a day to day thing, respect me for my honesty about what matters to me. They then tell me about what matters to them. *Everyone* accepts deep down that changes *may slowly* happen. But I get the impression what they hate most of all is people who don't speak their own truth, for all sorts of political correctness fears, (or in this thread, suggestions of attracting fellow travellers for theoretical reasons), for then they can't speak their truths to me. It's about people speaking their minds to one another.

A few years ago I had a Muslim family move into the flat above me. I quickly established a friendly and good communication with them, and told them I was bisexual. I did this because I'd had a lot of problems with the previous Carribean tennants by not assertively explaining that my female partner would be visiting frequently staying overnight. I was subjected to a lot of abuse for this, not realising that their is a strong prejudice against 'pussy suckers' and 'batty boys' in Jamaica. The new Muslim guy told me he considered that a no no, but hoped we could be good neighbours. I got the impression that he liked my honesty, and that I respected him enough to be able to say honestly where I was coming from

As the feminist idea is, 'the personal is the political'.

And I agree - it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to express distaste for halal slaughter. That goes without saying. But to make it an election issue? At this time? Why?

>But to make it an election issue? At this time? Why?<

Who here, on this thread, based in the UK, is making it an election issue? I've said this before though.

All it is, is a question of arguing against it as a process, on an internet message board, much as many, many other relgious based activities are.

You are obviously far more genned up than me about what bandwaggons Fascist parties are seeking to manipulate for purely emotional reasons. As I have also have said I don't bother myself with finding out what they are saying, unless the hard evidence indicates they are a genuine threat to our society. I base my argument on how I see things personally here in the context of recent discussion on this thread. I've yet to discuss this with anyone in real life and it will not be any sort of priority for me in deciding how I will decide something as important as to how I cast my vote in a real life election.

The reason I like things like TGD thread is that we can honestly discuss issues. I hardly think they will have any effect on real life voting in an election. I just don't get why you think to keep bringing up something that has no relevance to discussion here on h2g2.

<< halal slaughter comprises a small part of a greater whole...>>

at the moment, but it is on the rise, government institutions now only use halal suppliers, as it is easier to get all the meat from one source rather than getting only the ammount of halal that they need,

how long till that is the norm across all meat suppliers??

>Going without meat isn't necessarily about self-denial, btw.<

Yeah, I've some experience, I've a friend who's semi-veggie; she has no objection in principle she just doesn't like the texture of most meat. We take turns to cook for each other once a week so unless we stick to variations on the theme of spag bol/chili we have to look into some veggie recipes as well. My default setting though is to include meat with my dinner, partly because I'm quite suceptible to anaemia*, partly because dinner at home is meat-based (except for Fridays when its fish) but more and more I've been thinking we're not doing nature, or ourselves any favours rearing so may cows and chickens - so it's not really about denying myself meat, it's about exploring other options!

>I can assure you that I am the best cook you will ever come across

Oooh! You could have a cook-off with my brother! I'll do the taste tests! (I assure you I'll be completely impartial )




*I know! I can get the same nutrition on a veggie diet - it's just so much easier on an omnivore diet!